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

+1

AB

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:53 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:

> Agreed.
>
> On February 20, 2018 5:17:20 PM Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.
> com> wrote:
>
>> As long as it is obvious that this is after a successful extension
>> negotiation
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> (Sent from my phone)
>>
>> ----- Reply message -----
>> From: "Stan Ratliff" <ratliffstan@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" <draft-ietf-manet-dlep-
>> latency-extension@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-
>> extension-02.txt
>> Date: Tue, Feb 20, 2018 21:32
>>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>