IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] ready for LC : latency and multi-hop

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 25 January 2018 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 A6D7B12EB15 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:51:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 yYTxZttUjX3T for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 382D912EB11 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CMOut01 (unknown [10.0.90.82]) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E728E175DFC for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:50:56 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id 2nqt1x0042SSUrH01nqwx6; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:50:56 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=Rf/gMxlv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=RgaUWeydRksA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=jnqYjTZluhsXpHKFDVMA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=WgzIManUCwf2coDL4ypujFAUCscyehmFbm4K58dP++E=; b=E2m0Gk0Zzo7Ha3y+2vdcfxJXLH 8wvXVDJYHBXOEvSkFwPFX8s4aqBdxumBbzBmfQ0VxDAEXyi8lC9CS7lOshoO4ZZivEqrLxqZdF8Fu RYO+eEpw9CCADi0dMZ8uWOWqZ;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:44688 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1eerIC-001vHj-T7; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:50:52 -0700
To: Victoria Pritchard <pritchardv0@gmail.com>, Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>
Cc: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
References: <151182163087.13335.9898030294539351604@ietfa.amsl.com> <f9b818ce-f032-e04f-c6e4-8f3e14fe1793@labn.net> <CA+-pDCdLfTB7RsopqttYh243JeJ0kst3EPsJPuyXhPs4C3vR2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+fLEhKsyMLfYzGaO5ip9T8mavjyuLeDi2=G942iLpMH6SY=NA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <ea933d6c-6b75-a1e9-3be4-ac3b0f3223ab@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:50:50 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+fLEhKsyMLfYzGaO5ip9T8mavjyuLeDi2=G942iLpMH6SY=NA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1eerIC-001vHj-T7
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:44688
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/yMWTbJ3ammFxIv8xWWSbto1nWRc>
Subject: Re: [manet] ready for LC : latency and multi-hop
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: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:51:01 -0000

Vicky,

     Thank you for the comments!


On 1/21/2018 1:03 PM, Victoria Pritchard wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just a few picky comments on the Latency Range draft.
>
> Title
> Lantency -> Latency
>
thanks.

> Abstract
> Should you reference the DLEP RFC number here? Or at least expand the 
> acronym?
>
> Section 1
> It's "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol" (not "Event Protocol")
>

Well that's embarrassing! Fixed in all extensions.

> "provides an average latency" - the definition in RFC8175 actually 
> says "The calculation
>    of latency is implementation dependent.  For example, the latency may
>    be a running average calculated from the internal queuing." so not 
> sure it's right to say it provides an average.
>
how about:
    The base DLEP specification includes the Latency metric which provides
-  an average latency on a link.  This document adds the ability to relay
+  a single latency value on a link, which is implementation dependent.
+  This document adds the ability to relay


> "one new DLEP
>    Data Items" - unnecessary 's' on Items
> Section 3
> Is it " Latency Range Item " or " Latency Range Data Item "? Makes 
> sense to be consistent
>
agreed.

> Under the Maximum Latency field description:
> "representing the transmission longest
>       delay"
> should that be "longest transmission delay"?
> Similar comment for Minimum Latency
>
thanks!

> Section 5.2
> "Data Item Type Values"  is the name of the registry in RFC8175.
>
fixed in all drafts!

>
> Regards,
> Vicky
>

Thank you - changes have been pushed to the repo...

> On 8 January 2018 at 21:46, Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com 
> <mailto:bebemaster@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     As discussed during IETF 100 these documents are now in last call.
>     Please review them and post comments to the list.
>
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-01
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-01>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-03
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-03>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     manet mailing list
>     manet@ietf.org <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email