IETF Logo Mail Archive

[manet] comment on draft-rogge-manet-dlep-radio-band-03.txt

"Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl> Thu, 10 March 2022 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC353A07A4 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 15:00:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tno.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ilBjjRbMIF8V for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 15:00:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fromintouta.tno.nl (fromintouta.tno.nl [134.221.1.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DFC23A079E for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 15:00:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tno.nl; l=5542; s=mta1; t=1646953216; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=FgVB6tKkKBwZwGOeZCOAJNivjMt60JznVGKYdOxaZnM=; b=C2WdhfOoqUGCaxisJpKvviYeImHoGyedfS9rxq1LULi5p/cZ6U6tnNFq GYhFFPnbuE4hEbb64x4w7vnqylUvCdQELoF9iQIjJHJlOhx/L3s+P91YU eqvK0xXLv2KGtpvd9YxjllXKpvIFBQm6ImNYutTMCloY8DVfYYFE5UQAi A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.90,171,1643670000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="46294244"
Received: from UCP13.tsn.tno.nl (134.221.225.173) by UCP32.tsn.tno.nl (134.221.225.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.18; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:00:12 +0100
Received: from UCP13.tsn.tno.nl ([fe80::c142:976e:5281:8298]) by UCP13.tsn.tno.nl ([fe80::c142:976e:5281:8298%7]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.018; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:00:12 +0100
From: "Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl>
To: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: comment on draft-rogge-manet-dlep-radio-band-03.txt
Thread-Index: Adg0znA08WTM5Qa8SNiNHKq01hVqyw==
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 23:00:11 +0000
Message-ID: <dac36cefeefc49538b03d7b6b55c6d9c@tno.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US, nl-NL
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.221.225.191]
x-esetresult: clean, is OK
x-esetid: 37303A29CC1FED5362726A
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_dac36cefeefc49538b03d7b6b55c6d9ctnonl_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/_F9-Sca0E6vviN7FcVl0e_kkLJ8>
Subject: [manet] comment on draft-rogge-manet-dlep-radio-band-03.txt
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 23:00:22 -0000

Henning,

[chair hat on] Thank you very much for reviving this draft (as well as your other PHY-related DLEP extension drafts)!

[chair hat off] I have read this latest version and it looks good to me. I have one question / suggestion: What if the radio (or waveform active on it) is of the Frequency Hopping type? In that case, the modem (=radio) cannot meaningfully report a carrier frequency, but still can report bandwidth usage. Right now, I cannot think of an example of the reverse situation, in which the carrier frequency can be meaningfully reported, but the bandwidth cannot. However, I would suggest to use two of currently reserved Flag bits to indicate 'Frequency Valid' and 'Bandwidth Valid'. What do you think?

[chair hat back on] In a separate e-mail to the list, I am going to announce a WG adoption call for this I-D.

Ronald
This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email