From nobody Thu Mar 10 15:00:23 2022 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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" To: "manet@ietf.org" , Henning Rogge 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: 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: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 23:00:22 -0000 --_000_dac36cefeefc49538b03d7b6b55c6d9ctnonl_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 (=3Dradio) cann= ot 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 bandwidt= h cannot. However, I would suggest to use two of currently reserved Flag bi= ts 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 announc= e a WG adoption call for this I-D. Ronald This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you a= re 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 liab= ility for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it an= d for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electroni= c transmission of messages. --_000_dac36cefeefc49538b03d7b6b55c6d9ctnonl_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Henning,

 

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

 

[chair hat off] I have read thi= s 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 t= ype? In that case, the modem (=3Dradio) cannot meaningfully report a carrier frequency, but still can report bandw= idth usage. Right now, I cannot think of an example of the reverse situatio= n, in which the carrier frequency can be meaningfully reported, but the ban= dwidth cannot. However, I would suggest to use two of currently reserved Flag bits to indicate ‘Freq= uency Valid’ and ‘Bandwidth Valid’. What do you think?

 

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

 

Ronald