Subject: [manet] DLEP Latency Range Extension

From: Justin Dean <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:20:33 -0400

The document has been submitted to the IESG for publication.

I do have one nit which can be taken care of in future revisions.  The
range min/maxim is stated in the abstract in a overly fuzzy way.  The
packets may experience that delay....but they may not?  The definition of
the Maximum Latency and Minimum Latency in section 3 appear to prohibit
this, and the range is an absolute range, not a best effort guess for 99%
of the packets to be within the specified range.

Suggested fix to the abstract. s/may/can

Suggested fix to section 3  (but for both max and min)

A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
      delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is
      transmitted over the link.

A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
      delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is
      transmitted over the link.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 07:09:45 -0400

On 3/11/2019 6:20 PM, Justin Dean wrote:
> packets may experience that delay....but they may not?  The definition 
> of the Maximum Latency and Minimum Latency in section 3 appear to 
> prohibit this, and the range is an absolute range, not a best effort 
> guess for 99% of the packets to be within the specified range.
>
100% agree.

>        transmitted over the link.
Sure!

Thanks.

Lou

> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet