[manet] Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep -traffic-classification-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

HI Paul

Thanks for your review we have posted an update to address all IESG comments.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-14.txt

Sever people comment on the text of what happens so we have tried to address all

Let us know if the text is good now

Thanks
Don

________________________________
From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 10:03 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13: Discuss

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-traffic-classification/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Deb's DISCUSS

Section 2.3.1

It states "After successful validation, the receiver MUST ...", but it does not
state what the receiver should do when it fails validation. As the protocol
seems to have a window size of 1, my guess is that it MUST sent an error
message of some kind so that the other peer can send another/new/different DLEP
messages again?


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

The figure in Section 2.1 makes it appear that a Traffic Classification
Sub-Data Item is 32 bits in size, but Section 2.1.1 shows it is variable length
of at least 64 bits (again using to to me unknown convention of ":" instead of
"~"

A field name of "Must be two" is confusing. Normally we write the real name
with the value,eg  foo (2)

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]