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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Agreed.


On February 20, 2018 5:17:20 PM Rick Taylor 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> As long as it is obvious that this is after a successful extension negotiation
>
> Rick
>
> (Sent from my phone)
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Stan Ratliff" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Lou Berger" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Rick Taylor" <[e-mail]>, "Wiggins, David - 0665 
> - MITLL" <[e-mail]>, "Abdussalam Baryun" 
> <[e-mail]>, "manet" <[e-mail]>, 
> "[e-mail]" 
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.txt
> Date: Tue, Feb 20, 2018 21:32
>
> 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
>
>