Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-05

Alvaro Retana <> Fri, 15 March 2019 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC25C130E3F; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 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, HTML_OBFUSCATE_10_20=0.093, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WoXVZykqwMJN; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEEBD129BBF; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d22so7757735otk.10; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=p0kGgtxNJw1ksMyhGJdWowk2wZEcbOzJFnI4csWRzEw=; b=i8ALcyRxXkyQnA2wAImTHst6HMDK/2bBnNthYZMkAG+0aV7XjbwhIhjla0/T+ZzIZT YHXoA1eG7MEk3YBT6EZtXKkcUCiXdhtp4b4hFNijWbPtqgViB8MABGo4SPJshmQ3Vv9n QEyP2E5B2EZVxiYPhCDKJVEoo0x7oX7UvDLAAJVrpfNYwP7aChKgdxikSL4Yg5hb2+LA aPN05MS87Uv4NIb5Whrh71YrR4LEKGG63ZZ8wlqzYNLPdVXB/F2kPj0VVfS5lOghOAh8 qXF7cpoxgrBPG+Xy1dzVHojoOQRQvPHHbgeuX1/jfQFr2WKD10idaSHderJFE5iDcneH k4Rw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=p0kGgtxNJw1ksMyhGJdWowk2wZEcbOzJFnI4csWRzEw=; b=Ha/Y0JLnfYxovuu3+FS/v96ZsH6M/Q7AJiDiJv8iF7UZUD0oS6JGbErVSy3Ujp3DQd PEdnlC3Mfo1JEjGzrY24CBnK9ZxEDJV+2FnqTv42D8Bm5KnXAF3pK3Ztwpp3zksAeRy9 d+35nQwIAAk6lOCkDFIlayiKZtpXHa5szGtUDlqVtqc2jzs3EYEe5otnr/28ypXsxQIn WuMArxUo/AnwHQCE+DvJ3GSFSauH0gtUV1cbSA7yoz/zNfqjvY9G9b+C7YpkEBO4jiOJ otjqWwEcfRQ+ghXJ8MeZ0j1VTmUKKsWLJzOJeJC3MNO3MJb2i0eNM0b1ozj8crxc7DnD jTGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWv06l/L3gpNgOh0hVXpy6HIxCeqIL/+W9tC3lqt+42++3MrQAP +hdxj6uVRm0764MvmVnD+4uaSUjYNX3MtV56o1M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzmrceW+ZxomLMLBF2mvHcxSG4sVnldXIxAVoYchJAkVYmCXYeWZHPi4arypC4Qa6pGPztyE4D9SQC+mobv8QA=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6511:: with SMTP id i17mr2733828otl.45.1552664885023; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:48:04 +0100
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:48:04 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Lou Berger <>, Justin Dean <>
Cc: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group <>,, MANET IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed596a058423f678"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:48:08 -0000

On March 9, 2019 at 5:10:57 AM, Lou Berger ( wrote:



>>>>> 186 3.2.  Hop Control
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 200   A modem that receives the Hop Control Data Item in a Link
>>>>> 201   Characteristics Request Message SHOULD attempt to make
>>>>> the change
>>>>> 202   indicated by the data item for the associated
>>>>> destination MAC
>>>>> 203   address.  Once the change is made, fails or is rejected,
>>>>> the modem
>>>>> 204   MUST respond with a Link Characteristics Response
>>>>> Message containing
>>>>> 205   an updated Hop Count Data Item.  Note that other
>>>>> destinations can be
>>>>> 206   impacted as a result of the change and such changes are
>>>>> reported in
>>>>> 207   Destination Down and Destination Update Messages.  The
>>>>> modem MUST
>>>>> 208   notify the router of each destination that is not
>>>>> identified in the
>>>>> 209   Link Characteristics Response Message and is no longer
>>>>> reachable via
>>>>> 210   a Destination Down Message.  The modem MUST also notify
>>>>> the router of
>>>>> 211   each destination that is not identified in the Link
>>>>> Characteristics
>>>>> 212   Response Message and has a changed Hop Count impacted via a
>>>>> 213   Destination Update Message.
>>>>> [major] s/SHOULD attempt to make the change/SHOULD make the
>>>>> change  The Normative action is to make the change, not to try
>>>>> to make it.  There are 2 more instances of the same phrase in
>>>>> the text.
> well there is the "fails or rejected" outcomes -- I don't think
> it's right to call these anything but an attempt.  Perhaps there's
> another way to address your concern and the possibility that the
> change can fail.  What do you think?
> JWD This is actually because there is a hidden transient state: The
> modem is attempting to make the change but it hasn't yet succeeded or
> failed.  The amount of time this takes is fully dependent on the
> modem/radio characteristics so it would be inappropriate to put a
> fixed timeout value here.  This may be more cleanly stated by defining
> what the "attempt" state is.  The modem SHOULD enter the
> "attempt/resolving" state and once the change is made, fails or is
> rejected, the modem MUST respond.

given that these states are not defined anywhere in the context of DLEP,
I'm reluctant to add it here -- unless there is a solid reference
defining such.  Do you have a good reference?

alternatively, how about s/SHOULD attempt/SHOULD take whatever actions
are needed

I don’t like that either because it is not specific: what are the needed

I do like the explanation you added (below) about why it is really only an
attempt (why there may be failure/rejection).

So…I think that we could go back to “SHOULD attempt” given that there is an
explanation in the text.

BTW, there’s another “SHOULD attempt” in §3.2.3.


>   Failures may occur for multiple reasons, for example, the
> transmission
>   characteristics of the link don't support the one-hop connection at
>   the time of the request. Requests may be rejected by local policy.