Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 03:30 UTC
Return-Path: <ratliffstan@gmail.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 44DF5129D09; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:30:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 yfTwl9uZvZBj; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:30:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x233.google.com (mail-it0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C1E41298D2; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:30:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x233.google.com with SMTP id c7so116735339itd.1; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:30:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ecf8sN19PhKmgG+HbEnWkYasLGm3O2XTg1c4sRUTvhk=; b=qlKVtNqgshUYtYhc2brfS/kYJc3kBTipkbJz81NkALs9SqCUq8pA1MgVyGaWxkcCxz SBNkHpjStBXYLCHaVfdkBtLdfSuaAqDw+OSruNsIaWrqisWDBvwk4mwCCRMpdO7yXarR LszO3OLWg3F7fF9GsOKYelQM/lDgNKZocnr5eMkGEnT9J1IHPjHT0qTom2e9wJhlLGK+ BCkM/5CPoa8S6sEHD8E6YnoqtzcbKTyo7V2VmSBZPRjMxARTXbJStmk1DBaE+TAL8+Y1 5UYFDKTH7v8RxotwEyyR6er2h1A+j1+SE8rhpw41vEYVsm5uGBVYcPtjV8BN8H6Yo0VD FfTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ecf8sN19PhKmgG+HbEnWkYasLGm3O2XTg1c4sRUTvhk=; b=G0Jl0yro3pZUTPHxRZXO1B6HVZf9mncR3LjyWYxmBLfwtvo9PUyHwfE81hIyOyiSxw 35m4B6M0ldtOOFlKRwaYKO0eJMWip4bBP1cpp58nFvkH80097jRUeV3Iy87P9ibkfUzz lpeUUzZndNCp4iwhK0pCM/8hk7YAJ0sot9tYbGNZJe8PBnvusoV7l+JeUFU6qMDSX+Cw rxp8UoT0AQhB155u4/VoQN04W9TShMoAqJ2CThJwqPyPd4dw1D75NoyczfYlAY3zV8Xs qmrXvQU2Y1byNsLdX6BynQk3KKUeo21FBNylIXGPhKduiqVqa2EmAV8OIbMd2Hu7N+Wp foAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLMJrAmNZLbcJuSUeq2e9rpo4APJflNmIApsaNjzpeSTudiIwR0hOXOi4KAx7UWKRGk2qYD1WMgJ458MQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.123.145 with SMTP id q139mr18229041itc.62.1485833426855; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:30:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.158.87 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:30:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <148169297159.10864.11213404330614218630.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148169297159.10864.11213404330614218630.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:30:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CALtoyon13gui0_V7-QBp-NaNk4WHOs_eDOaJTTBkgHMftVxSfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146f0309a8d5305475b8d7a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/bokLcJ9B-TVHV7FxzyagamxpIiI>
Cc: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-manet-dlep@ietf.org, manet-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 31 Jan 2017 03:30:29 -0000
Suresh, Thank you for the review comments. We have submitted DLEP-27, and we believe it addresses your concerns. Additional information inline: On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Suresh Krishnan < suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote: > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * Section 11.7 > The MAC address encoding on the wire seems to be wrong. Instead of using > 6 bytes for MAC-48 the document seems to using 8 bytes. Similarly for > EUI-64 the document seems to be using 12 bytes instead of 8. Please fix > this (Also Note that the length values specified under the format of the > data item seem to be correct i.e. 6 & 8 - it is the data item format that > is wrong) > > Corrected the ASCII art. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * Sections 11.2, 11.3, 11.9 and 11.10 > The IPv4 and IPv6 addresses do not seem to be aligned on word boundaries. > Didn't you face any inefficiencies/difficulties due to this in your > implementations (I saw there were four independent ones)? > Due to the nature of TLV processing, and the fact that DLEP does not place ordering constraints on TLVs, the notion of alignment was pretty much given up long ago. Since DLEP is a control plane protocol, the performance penalties are not deemed sufficiently painful (e.g., there's just not enough traffic for it to be a huge problem). > > * Section 11.11.1 > Agree with Alia's point that there seems to be a typo in "IPv4 Attached > Subnet" > Fixed. Regards, Stan > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >
- [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-m… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Ratliff, Stanley
- Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Stan Ratliff
- Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Suresh Krishnan