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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

How about:

  The Latency Range Data Item MAY be
   carried in any message where the Latency Data Item [RFC8175] is
   allowed and is carried as an additional data item.  When present, the
   Latency Range Data Item MUST be processed according to the same rules
   as the Latency Data Item defined in <xref target="RFC8175"/>.

Lou

On 2/20/2018 4:32 PM, Stan Ratliff wrote:
> Lou,
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Lou Berger <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Stan,
>
>     "In lieu" of a mandatory 8175 item is a pretty big change.  I
>     don't think we want to go there.  I think the rest of the text is
>     fine.
>
>
> Point taken. So, you're good with the second sentence changing to "The 
> latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in addition to the Latency Data 
> Item." ??
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
>     On February 20, 2018 4:27:16 PM Stan Ratliff
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>>     I agree with Rick on adding 'types'. So, I'll propose some text.
>>     Maybe this will help?
>>
>>     "The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in any message where
>>     the Latency Data Item [RFC8175] is allowed. The Latency Range
>>     Data Item MAY be carried in addition to, or in lieu of, the
>>     Latency Data Item."
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     Stan
>>
>>
>>     >          The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in the same
>>     messages
>>     >    ... as  the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Rick Taylor
>>     <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>         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:[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Wiggins, David -
>>         > 0665 - MITLL
>>         > Sent: 20 February 2018 18:47
>>         > To: Lou Berger; Abdussalam Baryun
>>         > Cc: manet; [e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         > 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-
>>         > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of
>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         manet mailing list
>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>
>>
>>
>