Re: [manet] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: (with COMMENT)

["Taylor, Rick (External)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa,

Thank you for the review.  A few replies to your comments inline...

(Sorry for the multiple postings, but my local mailserver hates the IETF mailing lists)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 14 December 2016 19:06
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; manet-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26:
> (with
> COMMENT)
>
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> this introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For the Latency and Relative Link Quality metrics, it seems like
> allowing their measurement methods to be implementation-dependent
> reduces their usefulness. If two different implementations calculate
> these in different ways, then the results may not be comparable. Are
> these not meant to be compared between different destination implementations?

Yes, this is indeed a difficult issue.  The underlying concept behind DLEP is that modem implementers have their own low-level mechanisms for measuring such things as latency, and exposing these metrics to the routing layer rather than forcing the up layers to measure such things can be useful.  However, we didn't want to prescribe how a lower-layer might calculate such metrics, as we couldn't see a 'one size fits all' mechanism being useful.

When comparing metrics between destinations reported by a single modem, it is considered a safe assumption that the metrics are sensibly comparable.  When comparing metrics reported between different modems, it gets more complicated.  For metrics such as latency, it's fairly well understood what latency means.  However, for Relative Link Quality, that is by design subjective, the suggestion from DLEP is that this metric is most useful when used as a modifier to other metrics, hence the second paragraph in Section 11.18 and 11.19.

Hope that goes some way to explaining our rationale?

Regards,

Rick Taylor
The information contained within this e-mail and any files attached to this e-mail is private and in addition may include commercially sensitive information. The contents of this e-mail are for the intended recipient only and therefore if you wish to disclose the information contained within this e-mail or attached files, please contact the sender prior to any such disclosure.

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. Please also contact the sender and inform them of the error and delete the e-mail, including any attached files from your system.

Emails to Airbus Defence and Space Limited may be processed, recorded and monitored anywhere in the European Community.


Airbus Defence and Space Limited

Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS.
Registered in England and Wales under company number 02449259.