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

Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 21:32 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 BE5E5124E15; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:32:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 B719M8mQtOCJ; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:32:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22f.google.com (mail-io0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (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 2C28A120724; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:32:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id g21so6230731ioj.5; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:32:07 -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=wEUa/Szhr0i11EnnhajcTmiO6xwylaeeCJ46LsEHGzo=; b=a5DM/D+VxlCJxYCWVV2KNvCIqHOErvUr4Dn5w9dQY42pGXU9nz6hMIssGrYHM3UUR2 kKOi4tIup9PuGPeiOHcnXiWsjED9c9IMOrVOpfUaptUI5xACFsqE0OsG3DHA/aiXWbME dV8+8frIkeLImYFelrRTefHytol7p2jwiTgTonLZvM0JS68rzZRP8rlE/CUtyDKrwwdB a2Huc+uJ5hy2HL7KK/m/HnWZPBA4Sv9BjALfGM6lDh6PaYG2/D4Dq8ubAir8H/oF+dW9 81pF++jtxcGY/I3H7mfGdASfK78qpYxlzMBTu2GRVFZ6Owrys6s993XrT7230Vu2N7dA GHPA==
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=wEUa/Szhr0i11EnnhajcTmiO6xwylaeeCJ46LsEHGzo=; b=Wo8DR9mvbKgmkJNJboFj9bfWrFbzKWPKldr+Xx5kp72/TvsrHlAZDxafDjatyDUhCe zpX2Uyk5r6rlf615z9CnysjgrukdLKh04HO/lVFE5qncbbcSQLps0Gh/IRAVoAC4UjE3 jwqqIZ0RhO6/8t9TogqaDDiJ5SRdtKusjiWHlaW4qr0PXVPJJW2xCi0RNKDH9s5tKBRk hNAEQNtWd3d5wRgUbxGo5FmEiQOeiF2zFEjEuXD8LndHwq86ZHoKlEaTtoQzYmnGEeee gXp25I3EcUjuNFZ035pTY7YAv9pSpSiY6vQNsWFfc5A3NXHUVnJkDv9guSjzXUI6izlS fqbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPD+QkYwtMDdkjHwNa1GeoYrW1s4Gl9wn0oMAIz+hq+YP9kwjYv3 JPo8InAS+8XnBB9vFMezBXGcfXfgAkATM7KDD60=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224GLhaDQHyNW4WNhvg4BDZaS96/USu5/f1eMcdAaWrin3DMs3D6HhzL2LAk157LKRtBANI9zLZJv0MajQoZsZE=
X-Received: by 10.107.179.70 with SMTP id c67mr1405803iof.220.1519162326585; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:32:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.162.79 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:32:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <161b51ef380.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
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> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801D330F0F6@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CALtoyomAAQB9usW-mfEAF_r5q0ibP-8meAEWsogAtbMTzetTfg@mail.gmail.com> <161b51ef380.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
From: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:32:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CALtoyok98HjeYPunxQZ=+MVEVFix9=AWo=TpT=ABmCUJ8nQmBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, "Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <david.wiggins@ll.mit.edu>, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>, manet <manet@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11485318d518250565ab8a81"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/fjsPSf1V5NH5hhK3LFBvqUXmtxA>
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 21:32:10 -0000

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
>>>
>>
>>