[manet] Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-radio-quality-02

Henning, all,

[no hat]

Apologies for this late review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-radio-quality-02. I
know the WGLC is officially closed. I hope the below can still be taken into
consideration.

Major
-------
Section 3: I have a problem with the Bit Error Rate DI being specified as
mandatory, whereas the other DIs related to radio quality are made optional.
I know of radios ("modems") out there that will not be able to provide
(through their current proprietary management interface, but presumably
neither via DLEP, should they support that interface in future) a BER value
(before FEC), but can provide a value for SNR/SINR and/or RSSI and/or Noise
level. My suggestion would be to treat all four indicators of radio quality
as equal. In fact, I would go so far as to allocate a separate DLEP
Extension Type to each of them. This would allow a modem to signal during
Session Initialization which types of Radio Quality indication it supports.
(It is not as if we would exhaust the Extension Type space any time soon).

Minor
-------
1) Section 3: It should be specified, in this section or elsewhere, in which
DLEP Message Types the Data Items defined below MUST / SHOULD / MAY be
present. See draft-ietf-manet-dlep-channel-utilization, where this
information (although without using RFC 2119 key words) was added to Section
3 after an earlier review comment. (I understand that "interface specific"
implies Session-oriented messages and "neighbor specific" implies
Destination-oriented messages, but I would like to see this made explicit).

2) Section 3, section 5: Please enumerate the "TBD"s  for easier replacement
by actual values later in the process. (If I counted correctly, there are 5:
one Extension Type (but see major review comment above) and four Data Item
Types, so TBD1, TBD2, TBD3, TBD4, TBD5).

Thanks,
Ronald

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