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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On March 8, 2019 at 9:54:24 AM, Lou Berger ([e-mail]) wrote:

Lou:

Hi!

Thanks for getting this done.

I have a couple of nits below — and will also send a reply to your exchange
with Justin.   I’ll start the IETF LC in a couple of minutes.

Alvaro.


...

...
>> 72 1.  Introduction
>> ...
>> 80   Some modem technologies support connectivity to destinations via
>> 81   multi-hop forwarding.  DLEP Destination messages can be used to
>> 82   report such connectivity, see [RFC8175], but do not provide any
>> 83   information related to the number or capacity of the hops.  The
>> 84   extension defined in this document enables modems to inform routers
>> 85   when multi-hop forwarding is being used, and routers to request that
>> 86   modems change multi-hop forwarding behavior.  The extension defined
>> 87   in this document is referred to as "Multi-Hop Forwarding".
>>
>> [major] Please define "multi-hop forwarding" in the context of the modems.
>>
>>
Done, please see the changes at the repo posted above and let me know if
the changes are sufficient.

Yes, I think that’s fine.  Just a nit: there’s some orphaned text (“example
using”) left in the new text.

...



>> 166   Reserved:
>>
>> 168      MUST be set to zero by the sender (a modem) and ignored by the
>> 169      receiver (a router).
>>
>> [major] I think that a registry for these bits is needed.  Otherwise
>> anyone can use them...
>>
>>
My inclination would be to establish a registry on the second usage of the
reserved field.  Right now I don't see additional uses and it seems like a
lot of unneeded overhead at this point.  Of course, you're the AD so your
view counts for more ;-)

…but you still didn’t define the registry. :-(

Seriously:  it’s ok.  I trust that the next user will do the right thing.