Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP Metric drafts

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:52:27 +0200

Hi Henning,

In the meeting I showed my interest, but one of the draft I
explained/wanted to know the packet format to be added in draft (as you did
not prefer to use manet-packet), my reason was that frequency band draft
was not important to me only if I have a clear packet format between not
only radio-router but also neighbours as a unified format related to
frequency selected. However, for the other two draft I support totally.

I suggest that the draft includes the use cases or the importance of using
it, adding some text to show advantages, other than proposed by the
original standard 8175, as what is missing in rfc8175. As for the link
quality draft, how we can compare between it and the use of RFC8175 section
13.18 and 13.19.

best regards
AB

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 9:20 AM Rogge, Henning <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> ​Hi,
>
> 3 month gone (and a large time blocker for me and the WG chair also gone)
> since the last meeting.
>
> What is the status and opinion of the WG about the three DLEP drafts I
> presented last IETF meeting? Does the WG want to adopt the drafts (which
> means there will be more)?
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rogge-manet-dlep-channel-utilization-00.txt
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rogge-manet-dlep-radio-band-02.txt
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rogge-manet-dlep-radio-quality-00.txt
>
> Henning Rogge
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:06:25 +0200

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:01 PM Abdussalam Baryun
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hi Henning,
>
> In the meeting I showed my interest, but one of the draft I explained/wanted to know the packet format to be added in draft (as you did not prefer to use manet-packet), my reason was that frequency band draft was not important to me only if I have a clear packet format between not only radio-router but also neighbours as a unified format related to frequency selected. However, for the other two draft I support totally.

Just as a comment... my drafts are all DLEP (RFC 8175) extension
drafts, so they have to comply to the DLEP packet and message
format... packetbb (RFC 5444) is the data format for NHDP and OLSRv2,
which does NOT apply to RFC 8175. The discussion about what data
format we (as the MANET WG) want to use ended with publishing the RFC
8175.

> I suggest that the draft includes the use cases or the importance of using it, adding some text to show advantages, other than proposed by the original standard 8175, as what is missing in rfc8175. As for the link quality draft, how we can compare between it and the use of RFC8175 section 13.18 and 13.19.

DLEP 13.18 and 13.19 define the messages to request the radio to
change into a new configuration, but they need TLVs to tell the radio
WHAT to do. Just as the "Current Data Rate (Transmit)" TLV can be used
with DLEP 13.18/13.19 to request a different bitrate, the proposted
frequency TLV (as an example) could be used to tell the radio to
switch to a different radio channel on demand. This could be used
(again, as an example) to evade a detected jamming attempt or just
make a preplanned (and group coordinated) switch of radio bands for a
whole mesh network.

Henning Rogge

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:05:33 +0200

> format we (as the MANET WG) want to use ended with publishing the RFC

If this draft is using DLEP format only....... then it is fine, so I
suggest it should mention that more in details. The DLEP draft is mostly
generalised, it is ok to have generalised extensions but some
information/details sections to back that up (e.g. DLEP RFC8175 gives some
guide of using it).

 I am interested to know benefit of the extension for manet, so I needed
more information.

I agree with RFC8175 totally, and I was discussing-every-day when authors
proposed the draft-00. I was discussing against the use of 5444 in the DLEP
(still do), because I want DLEP to be flexible to many technologies outside
MANET (maybe only OLSRv2 team were interested to add it).

Therefore,  now the DLEP is not only for MANETs as publishing 8175, so it
can be used with other IETF-WGs (let us leave it that way), so we can
discuss to look into more advantages within IETF. Furthermore, I notice
that rfc8175 does leave things open/general for discussion as it has
mentioned-assumptions and has things it did not end discussion about.

Overall DLEP 8175 did not talk about frequency selections/information, so
your draft opens such discussion. I was thinking of adding extending
8175-format in your draft because of  frequency selection, and not thinking
of using packetbb which was invented for OLSRv2.

 As I mentioned in IETF-meeting related to your draft to have a
defined-format, but I was not given enough time to reply to your
refuse, which I understand.
My reason for extended-format or defined-format, and not only
frequency-item extending, is that frequency-item to be flexible for
DLEP-functions, and which may use MIMO technology (e.g. some modems may
have two data stream over same frequency, using polarisation diversity).

Best Wishes,
AB