IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu> Tue, 20 February 2018 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=5589d723bc=david.wiggins@ll.mit.edu>
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 E1F9612DA09; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:47:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kPVgK0MoPvEl; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:47:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from llmx3.ll.mit.edu (LLMX3.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F1812D96A; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:47:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB01.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB01.mitll.ad.local) by llmx3.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id w1KIlLXs036691; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:47:21 -0500
From: "Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
CC: manet <manet@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHTpeuCULBcw8lYE0O2vuJm4DzNVaOk4VaAgAZFtQCAAXwKgIAAR4KAgAEBoAD//75rAA==
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:47:20 +0000
Message-ID: <4FEB14CD-DE8D-4735-9FCA-8912EB49AB82@ll.mit.edu>
References: <151865086912.7521.1302513672018061966@ietfa.amsl.com> <e7dfe5c2-ba21-fc0b-121f-908f37cf6618@labn.net> <CADnDZ8-Kw6jDbBNer8nBmPFPwhin+hHDxovV1VajizPrK2Ra_Q@mail.gmail.com> <b183af7e-c416-85be-46b2-a2e32004cbcc@labn.net> <CADnDZ8_jLnnXcvT=bpXCK6Rc1DiB3Kx2uHUFJ3rMeTHDM_NboA@mail.gmail.com> <1b0c761b-9fda-49e0-8344-52750c232b74@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <1b0c761b-9fda-49e0-8344-52750c232b74@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.25.59.118]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3601979240_1141897982"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-02-20_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1802200225
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/smxwQ69LUHQhH6wrLjEXcgoLNfU>
Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.txt
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:47:26 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email