IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.txt

Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
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 E68CD12D955; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:05:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KKSOUbosH3Sz; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com (mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com [188.94.42.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B92C126CD6; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d]) by tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d%10]) with mapi; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:05:36 +0000
From: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
To: "Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
CC: manet <manet@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHTpeuLyTOgGDggRE6oXD83soFJ16OkjYSAgAZFtQCAAXwKgIAAR4KAgAEBoQCAABI8AIAAJnyA
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:05:35 +0000
Message-ID: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801D330F0F6@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <151865086912.7521.1302513672018061966@ietfa.amsl.com> <e7dfe5c2-ba21-fc0b-121f-908f37cf6618@labn.net> <CADnDZ8-Kw6jDbBNer8nBmPFPwhin+hHDxovV1VajizPrK2Ra_Q@mail.gmail.com> <b183af7e-c416-85be-46b2-a2e32004cbcc@labn.net> <CADnDZ8_jLnnXcvT=bpXCK6Rc1DiB3Kx2uHUFJ3rMeTHDM_NboA@mail.gmail.com> <1b0c761b-9fda-49e0-8344-52750c232b74@labn.net> <4FEB14CD-DE8D-4735-9FCA-8912EB49AB82@ll.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4FEB14CD-DE8D-4735-9FCA-8912EB49AB82@ll.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/_rS1gz_j4zquTT-fN6vv61MxIVQ>
Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.txt
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:05:42 -0000

We have been fairly consistent in RFC8175 to refer to DLEP *messages*  I'm not sure adding 'types' helps...

Rick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wiggins, David -
> 0665 - MITLL
> Sent: 20 February 2018 18:47
> To: Lou Berger; Abdussalam Baryun
> Cc: manet; draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-
> 02.txt
> 
> On 2/20/18, 12:42 PM, "manet on behalf of Lou Berger" <manet-
> bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lberger@labn.net> wrote:
>     On 2/19/2018 9:19 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>     > But IMO it is not clear where the Latency Range item operates within
>     > 8175,
>     >
> 
>     The draft currently says:
> 
>           The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in the same messages
>     ... as  the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].
> 
>     Is this not sufficient?
> 
> Perhaps AB is reading this as "if a specific, on-the-wire message has a Latency
> Data Item in it, then that particular message is allowed to have a Latency
> Range Data Item.  Otherwise, it cannot have a Latency Range Data Item.
> AB, is that your interpretation?  If so, then maybe just saying "message
> types"
> instead of "messages" is enough clarification.
> 
> David

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email