[manet] Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep -traffic-classification-15: (with DISCUSS)

Don Fedyk <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.manet
Message-ID <PH7PR14MB53687DF7255F3C66FBB1C8B7BBA62@PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Paul

Thanks for noticing the moved dividers- fixed
I have also changed ":" to "~" .  Where you pointed out and elsewhere.

Also, I'm aligning the security text to match the recent changes in the Flow control draft.
I have just posted version 16 which addresses these points.

Thanks
Don


________________________________
From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 8:42 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-15: (with DISCUSS)

Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-15: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for resolving the security DISCUSS raised by Deb and my validation error
concern. There are just a few small items left that need fixing.

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
"~")

Also in the last two updates since my previous ballot, a new error appeared in
table 2.2 and 2.3. The text "Must be one (1)" was replaced with "Sub-Data Item
Type (1)" and the longer text moved the Length field marker to an incorrect
place.

Once these errors are fixed, I will resolve my DISCUSS.

_______________________________________________
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.