[manet] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-dlep- credit-flow-control-17: (with COMMENT)

Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.manet
Message-ID <173859397104.123179.7604119799880493374@dt-datatracker-6f7f8bdd64-25rl2>
Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspect Deb's DISCUSS.

Note the figure in Section 2.3.1 shows 2 32 bit credit fields but the text
describes it as one 64 bit credit field. Please fix the figure. Looking again,
I see a ":" notation that I've never seen used before. I think the following is
far cleaner:

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         Credit Value                          |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

This is also done in other sections, eg 2.3.3, 2.3.4, etc

In 2.3.2 the description of field "Data Item Type" should be "Data Item Type
(TBA5)".

Flow Identifier (FID): should probably say it is a two octet value ?
I would also use the more common ~ instead of : syntax in the diagrams
to indicate variable length.

Section 4

Since this protocol has a window size of one (only one outstanding msg allowed),
couldn't an enduser/malicious code somehow block this traffic flow from
happening by sending bogus msgs that fill up the queue of size 1? How can an
implementation protect itself against this?



_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.