Subject: [manet] credit-wIndow-02 comments

From: "Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 14:11:06 +0000

A couple of comments I made on credit-window-01 are not addressed in -02:

On 2/29/16, 9:10 AM, "manet on behalf of Wiggins, David - 0665" wrote:

>Here are a few commemts on  draft-ietf-manet-credit-window-01.  Sorry I
>didn't get this out earlier.
>
>The draft talks about Destination Up and Response, but not Destination
>Announce and Response.  A strict reading would only allow modems to
>request credit windowing on their destinations, since only they can send
>Destination Up (as of DLEP-18).  I *think* the intention was to allow
>either side to request credit windowing.  If so, then Destination Announce
>and Response need to be added.  In most cases it is probably sufficient to
>change "Destination Up" to "Destination Up or Destination Announce" and
>likewise for Response.
>
>The code points for the new data items and the extension code are still
>listed as TBD.  Do specific values need to be chosen, as was done in the
>DLEP draft?  DLEP-19 says that the Credit Windowing extension has code =
>1, so at least that should be consistent.  Ideally it would not be
>specified in two places.

Also, a new nit: Wondow -> Window in section 7.2.

Thanks,

David

---

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 09:59:37 -0500

David,

My first response wasn't "reply all", so I'm replicating here. My apologies
for not addressing. Please see inline for additional comments.

> >change "Destination Up" to "Destination Up or Destination Announce" and

Yes, good catch.

> >1, so at least that should be consistent.  Ideally it would not be

Even though the drafts list each other as normative references, I took the
position that the DLEP draft defines the IANA registires, and serves as the
initial allocation. Therefore, this draft is asking for supplemental
allocations; hence the TBD.

Thanks,

Regards,
Stan