Return-Path: 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 A61CE126DFB; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:16:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 BAxOwYHX4UVB; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:16:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com (mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com [188.94.42.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA01D1200B9; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:16:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d]) by tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d%10]) with mapi; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:16:45 +0000 From: Rick Taylor To: Stan Ratliff , Lou Berger CC: David - 0665 - MITLL Wiggins , Abdussalam Baryun , "manet@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: AQHTpeuLyTOgGDggRE6oXD83soFJ16OkjYSAgAZFtQCAAXwKgIAAR4KAgAEBoQCAABI8AIAAJnyAgAAGEgCAAAC2gIAAAMUAgAAMesg= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:16:45 +0000 Message-ID: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801D330F213@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801D330F213tssserver1hom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:16:52 -0000 --_000_38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801D330F213tssserver1hom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As long as it is obvious that this is after a successful extension negotiat= ion Rick (Sent from my phone) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Stan Ratliff" To: "Lou Berger" Cc: "Rick Taylor" , "Wiggins, David - 0665 = - MITLL" , "Abdussalam Baryun" , "manet" , "draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extens= ion@ietf.org" Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.txt Date: Tue, Feb 20, 2018 21:32 Lou, On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Lou Berger > wrote: Stan, "In lieu" of a mandatory 8175 item is a pretty big change. I don't think w= e want to go there. I think the rest of the text is fine. Point taken. So, you're good with the second sentence changing to "The late= ncy Range Data Item MAY be carried in addition to the Latency Data Item." ?= ? Regards, Stan On February 20, 2018 4:27:16 PM Stan Ratliff > wrote: I agree with Rick on adding 'types'. So, I'll propose some text. Maybe this= will help? "The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in any message where the Latenc= y Data Item [RFC8175] is allowed. The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carrie= d in addition to, or in lieu of, the Latency Data Item." Regards, Stan > The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in the same messages > ... as the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175]. On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Rick Taylor > wrote: We have been fairly consistent in RFC8175 to refer to DLEP *messages* I'm = not sure adding 'types' helps... Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org= ] On Behalf Of Wiggins, David - > 0665 - MITLL > Sent: 20 February 2018 18:47 > To: Lou Berger; Abdussalam Baryun > Cc: manet; draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension- > 02.txt > > On 2/20/18, 12:42 PM, "manet on behalf of Lou Berger" 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 withi= n > > 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 L= atency > Data Item in it, then that particular message is allowed to have a Latenc= y > 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 _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --_000_38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801D330F213tssserver1hom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As long as it is obvious that this is after a successful e= xtension negotiation

Rick

(Sent from my phone)

----- Reply message -----
From: "Stan Ratliff" <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
To: "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: "Rick Taylor" <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, "W= iggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <david.wiggins@ll.mit.edu>, "= Abdussalam Baryun" <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>, "manet&quo= t; <manet@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ie= tf.org" <draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org>
Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.txt=
Date: Tue, Feb 20, 2018 21:32

Lou, 


On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net<= /a>> wrote:

Stan,

"In lieu" of a mandato= ry 8175 item is a pretty big change.  I don't think we want to go ther= e.  I think the rest of the text is fine.


Point taken. So, you're good with the second sentence changing to &quo= t;The latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in addition to the Latency Dat= a Item." ??

Regards,
Stan

 

On February 20, 2018 4:27:16 PM Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Rick on adding 'types'. So, I'll propose some text. Maybe= this will help? 

"The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in any message where = the Latency Data Item [RFC8175] is allowed. The Latency Range Data Item MAY= be carried in addition to, or in lieu of, the Latency Data Item."

Regards,
Stan


&= gt;           The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carri= ed in the same messages
&= gt;     ... as  the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].


On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Rick Taylor <ric= k@tropicalstormsoftware.com> wrote:
We have been fairly consistent in RFC8175 to refer to DLEP *messages* = I'm not sure adding 'types' helps...

Rick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wiggins, David -<= br> > 0665 - MITLL
> Sent: 20 February 2018 18:47
> To: Lou Berger; Abdussalam Baryun
> Cc: manet; draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-ex= tension-
> 02.txt
>
> On 2/20/18, 12:42 PM, "manet on behalf of Lou Berger" <ma= net-
> bounces@ietf.org= on behalf of lberger@labn.net&= gt; wrote:
>     On 2/19/2018 9:19 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>     > But IMO it is not clear where the Latency Rang= e item operates within
>     > 8175,
>     >
>
>     The draft currently says:
>
>           The Latency Range Data Item MA= Y be carried in the same messages
>     ... as  the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8= 175].
>
>     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 Lat= ency
> Range Data Item.  Otherwise, it cannot have a Latency Range Data = Item.
> AB, is that your interpretation?  If so, then maybe just saying &= quot;message
> types"
> instead of "messages" is enough clarification.
>
> David

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


--_000_38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801D330F213tssserver1hom_--