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

Hi Stan,

New> 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 the Latency Data Item carried in any message."

thanks now it easier to understand,

agreed,

AB

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:32 PM, Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>