IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] Call for acceptance as Working Group documents

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Tue, 06 December 2016 11:27 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@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 3F935129887 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 03:27:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 WQFZMpT0vWi0 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 03:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (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 6ED86129443 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 03:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id n6so343372707qtd.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Dec 2016 03:27:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6CzTayg8mOVfjaNBTqQyNIiwqUuYRNXFM0nlbJOri0w=; b=Cqv86u/wjCcx4s4xRzJ9AeFaUqwG8XBXc5Aesw/PcDJQwM2ZBy/G8Ew7Ocsk5OS/5w wjKCJko3t1KcQqyRbL+Utad0k9d+Xc3YM8kmtGqFdSjG9ZKQdiw4XP4HIm4CJcSKHZ69 XSxxVRLrLeQ1MhSL0ZCWybk3vXxER+Rz30PWdxn/gVRO6YNmxwRoPYQLg27essaiIkLq X3r89Dm0BmTkfvvrO8QEm9xkfcOQ1MG12e0H5nEMWLbxFpsllZG548Fwg+LQl26oT0By IZay+qReW7SVcap8Yu/YdH9dp8NXa8hXV+NxdKm5NP6fdvkNiwgqolQ4qMEoRttruYk2 lzGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6CzTayg8mOVfjaNBTqQyNIiwqUuYRNXFM0nlbJOri0w=; b=OP8kIsYQv37K1lWgYfx/ro9BdNZAEAsPTF5p9Lb2HK4d6HQFw9k++j7w0eB5WTwN72 f0TtAYe66TcUHn5Bqj00e9uJI5DRGId/SYWKc6UBvvnE9zkcnYDv9dgmDhtltnF0b4bW PhJM8QRoK+I1mrem79lGn5zwa7/+M3rggudMXTxdM+Eb+6B427r0991lDVsMzA4TcUum V2GpOqGenCZPr7dvfhlT1RYjodYzAtYyr58qnBHkxOI57zqF3zfPpD7HssRJXMIymKEA Eh9tWUJ6c8eZzDzLQtQqUz0i6bWLQwI2UcUT9cHLp7QV6J1AASdB9JvWtGgVTaY9Jipl wGag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02XjaIxgeDVst6Rkr+jGh5ivEFoSjZ1Hyx5RQtWNOu4NMf1AiIfGv+FOpCoMCZ1yCPFDTIDRd2oGJ5Srw==
X-Received: by 10.200.57.54 with SMTP id s51mr52985075qtb.68.1481023625793; Tue, 06 Dec 2016 03:27:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.38.161 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 03:26:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALtoyokY4GE1LHeGjUXmrHT-TF+=t=QcLuzLpcs7pLBm0RDURQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALtoyokY4GE1LHeGjUXmrHT-TF+=t=QcLuzLpcs7pLBm0RDURQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 12:26:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvurOv3VLk3s6EtnZ_vciY+a5sMLnS4Gw1yLzmY-XroDLFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/w-OVSzn76GuDxXpR-V-Axfjp8RM>
Cc: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] Call for acceptance as Working Group documents
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 06 Dec 2016 11:27:09 -0000

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello working group participants,
>
> One of the items identified during the WG meeting in Seoul was to formally
> request, via the list, Working Group adoption of 5 extension drafts related
> to DLEP. This email is that formal request.
>
> The drafts are:
> 1.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latency-extension-00.html
> 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-pause-extension-00
> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-00
> 4. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latency-extension-00
> 5. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-00

All of these drafts contain valid (and important) extensions for DLEP,
as long as we keep in mind that we might need to shuffle the ideas
around between documents I definitely support adopting them.

establishing a concept of "flows" for DLEP would be a good start for a
more generic document, which we then could use to describe how to
select these flows (e.g. DSCP) and how they are handled by the radio
(e.g. prioritization order) and to control the flow for each of them.

Henning

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email