Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 07:09:32 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG of the IETF.

        Title           : DLEP Multi-Hop Forwarding Extension
        Authors         : Bow-Nan Cheng
                          Lou Berger
	Filename        : draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-04.txt
	Pages           : 10
	Date            : 2018-02-16

Abstract:
   This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol that enables
   the reporting and control of Multi-Hop Forwarding by DLEP capable
   modems.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:14:31 -0500

Hi,

     I thought it would be good to publish this version which captures 
all LC comments and discussion to date.  Please review (diffs) and let 
us know if we missed anything or if you still would like to see any 
additional language changes?

Chairs,

     What's the next step?  Is LC now closed?  What else would you like 
to see happen before publication request?

Thanks,

Lou

On 2/16/2018 10:09 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

---

From: "Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:28:38 +0000

Thanks for updating this, Lou.

I had a bit of trouble parsing this:
"Note that neither Destination Down or Update Message SHOULD NOT
be sent for the destination MAC address contained in the Link Characteristics
Response Message."

The double negative threw me... maybe just omit "neither"?

Otherwise, looks good!

David

On 2/16/18, 10:15 AM, "manet on behalf of Lou Berger" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi,

    Chairs,

    Thanks,
    
    Lou

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:25:19 -0500

Hi David,

> be sent for the destination MAC address contained in the Link Characteristics
Fair enough - it is hard to parse.
How about
OLD:
   ....  Note that other destinations can be
   impacted as a result of the change and such changes are reported in
   Destination Down and Destination Update Messages.  The modem MUST
   notify the router of each destination that is no longer reachable via
   a Destination Down Message. The modem MUST notify the router of any
   changes in Hop Counts via Destination Update Messages.  Note that
   neither Destination Down or Update Message SHOULD NOT be sent for the
   destination MAC address contained in the Link Characteristics
   Response Message.

NEW:
   ...Note that other destinations can be
   impacted as a result of the change and such changes are reported in
   Destination Down and Destination Update Messages.  The modem MUST
   notify the router of each destination that is *not identified in the
   Link Characteristics Response Message and* is no longer reachable via a
   Destination Down Message.  The modem MUST *also* notify the router of
   *each destination that is not identified in the Link Characteristics
   Response Message and has a changed Hop Count impacted via a
   Destination Update Message*.

Changes are flagged with asterisks.

Does this work?
Lou

---

From: "Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 21:34:47 +0000

Yes, that's clearer to me.  Thanks!

David

On 2/16/18, 4:26 PM, "Lou Berger" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi David,

    NEW:

    Does this work?
    Lou