Re: [manet] planned next steps based on IETF 102

Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> Thu, 02 August 2018 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.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 59DF6129AB8 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 06:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wFF682xsVOVF for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 06:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com (mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com [188.94.42.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C40EC128BAC for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 06:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d]) by tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:45:30 +0100
From: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
To: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>, "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net>
CC: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [manet] planned next steps based on IETF 102
Thread-Index: AQHUKFHH9SNwccQ47Ea5v6pEz0YHc6SpiaaAgALjFIA=
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 13:45:29 +0000
Message-ID: <be52d31af54198d790b3b87dd8380be600bba8a9.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <59d144dd-4ed9-cbf1-77e6-10f07f52f901@labn.net> <bdae388c-85f8-d10c-0e11-f3fa6caff2a6@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <bdae388c-85f8-d10c-0e11-f3fa6caff2a6@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2001:470:1f09:a1a::1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <D968E4EFBFB1AE46908C86FDFD6D4A10@home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/j7pG3zSvnu2OqWw6XSFSsvRibV0>
Subject: Re: [manet] planned next steps based on IETF 102
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 13:45:39 -0000

Hi Lou,

I fully support the split (I was one of the proponents).

Also I'm glad to see Stan's name back on the Credit Windowing draft, as
we seem to have gone full-circle, but I think we are back to a sensible
place.

I will give better feedback once I've had a chance to review the split
more extensively.

I'm reserving judgement on the ether-credit extension, as I need to
read the split drafts more carefully.  Yes, I want to use Ether-TOS
markings (explicitly VLAN-IDs) but not necessarily with credit
windowing.  I wonder whether we are requesting too many extension
points from IANA, and whether fewer, e.g. FlowIDs, Credits, might be a
better level of granularity, and result in less drafts just requesting
an extensions point.

I promise a more coherent response when I have some more time next
week.

Cheers,

Rick


On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 13:40 -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
> Please see https://github.com/louberger/dlep-extensions to see a
> preview 
> of the split discussed below (per IETF102).
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 7/30/2018 6:02 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> >       I wanted to confirm a few points discussed at the last
> > meeting
> > (hosted by CCAMP) before making any changes.  Here's what I
> > understood
> > from the meeting:
> > 
> > 1) WRT draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-02 :
> > 
> > The discussion concluded that the credit window control mechanisms
> > (messages and DIs) should be split from the traffic classification
> > mechanisms.  Assuming there is agreement, the traffic
> > classification
> > will be moved into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. 
> > Stan
> > will also be added as an author of
> > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control as credit window control
> > is
> > derivative of his earlier work.
> > 
> > Does anyone object to this change?
> > 
> > Do the chairs agree with this change?  (once you do, I'll submit
> > the
> > related updates -- this impacts the four drafts.)
> > 
> > 
> > 2) WRT draft-berger-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-00
> > 
> > The few people in the room who were interested in the topic, were
> > supportive of adopting this draft.
> > 
> > WG chairs, can we proceed with an adoption poll or is the more WG
> > organization decisions to be made?
> > 
> > That's it,
> > Lou
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > manet mailing list
> > manet@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet