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

Lou,

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> 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 <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
> 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 <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.
>> com> 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: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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list
>>> manet@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>
>>
>>