Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-05
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 15 March 2019 15:47 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.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 F33B112008F; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 6bmxBh2ks3fi; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x232.google.com (mail-oi1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA38812D4F0; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x232.google.com with SMTP id j132so4669484oib.2; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tTaIh6A9JKmyJSOtN/cvP1xEGfTt/7r81kU8n5eXGQo=; b=MP+8ZvmXUzbes82EMVbQfroBQPIX7n2RMK/XqBVT9t6YwWNDVqpwR1ZuQ4NX9gzkwQ WktZhXgfp2aWu9im4nuTC5ZKUte+VGOSjdZVXN7MBw1US4xayovRIgBzwKB1zw1efRzg rMPcQ72RIRmDVOujbQjcZWH78XkCIBLPFUVEZustHZ6s8bDv63Sc397qA7IB3gwVWxGo TOwg0+TyV3gBwAoyqZ65VW4LWYL/4OKyYMOJ4ElRFyWb9fuPz3xi7GkrIfmSkwxUa4CV elc3oDqo/XkPFkTPiEZboSBvvlrnRRZqODJMNAvFWQUqHHbeQ2U8X0llRv2m3I4XTTUS H+gw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tTaIh6A9JKmyJSOtN/cvP1xEGfTt/7r81kU8n5eXGQo=; b=C7/GsGl3m7gasuR7OUxQPBbqYt6tC8HlLGjHxsTrD3l6IlTOFg8UZPME7/mi5rsLrK GgKnEtWUnxOYl9EDxJ5GUASM9P5hbfQUbwaho/KJzvqz6cZ8Ath6iwcZvdKPzWqweZxL TdB+gOvbgM8qKk80Vv1ivzorij5fZVf3QfsscbG2/XB26JNM7XbuhtwervzraOxaBfRG pCfyzGnc4lG95rBxZs8Tfv/BaJkYqU8n9CIOeHbfFgufjfdfX5ozgmuyfKux50dtlbag 0PoAZwRyL3is0EEMQRudG9h87efrvws5c0wZuTIb23dq63z8XCqZVtLR0Ef05HZ31Mrr LHVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVhCQAE3uWEQw1m5PRQbgrOR4g3vFVOGd8RSxQkV1wrQld6C8om 18l6huUVnOZn2bx6l71MRTz9FovXVl08afI9qrY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxwOm9bma4/Y9EiV9tabCYXspUa+m7yf5o6skiwF8cx++2LyihRgILmsat6YW8VXNspz4i+bukCmdzF8uPnjPc=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4c10:: with SMTP id z16mr1891820oia.53.1552664830020; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:47:09 +0100
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <07cfd806-e3b1-3772-70a6-9db5af9662e7@labn.net>
References: <CAMMESszKYXy_Oy-L+TgiJqqWBWOFTOxtnjuaX+O8Q+Jpg9iO3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESsxztEYE3aDz0zmAsPwqpU9Q1szv0qiMcH8kUf=O9jhfgg@mail.gmail.com> <07cfd806-e3b1-3772-70a6-9db5af9662e7@labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:47:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMMESsz4rXqph=RR7hmnQM3hBT34=d6sLpxEkpyx7=3gPFJ9ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension@ietf.org
Cc: "Ratliff, Stanley" <sratliff@idirect.net>, manet@ietf.org, Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group <manet-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a61291058423f347"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/piN9ZtFU1WA_S6B4gKF1JwGU8qA>
Subject: Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-05
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:47:13 -0000
On March 8, 2019 at 9:54:24 AM, Lou Berger (lberger@labn.net) 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.
- [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-mu… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-mu… Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-mu… Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-mu… Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-mu… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-mu… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-mu… Lou Berger
- Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-mu… Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't
- Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-mu… Lou Berger