Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP-17 comments, part 6

From: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 18:44:48 +0000

Comments inline...

On 07/12/15 12:27, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> Section 10 (just appendices to go).
>
> Many comments made about a section apply to other sections. I have not
> attempted to work out all of these.
>
> Table 2, usual IANA comments, including use of Reserved (not for 0).

Noted.

>
> Section 10.1, first line. “MAY appear” reads like a non-2119 use of may.
> But some later sections have MUST. So really I think this is “MAY be
> included in”. But leaves unspecified what if included elsewhere.

This paragraph has gone

>
> Section 10.1 first paragraph on page 35, not sure about use of
> “implementation”. i.e. should be e.g. (line 3).

Fixed.

>
> Text description, should you check for unprintable if receiving but not
> using? And what if there are any unprintable characters? Not assuming
> NUL terminated, I think really this is stronger, it should not be.

The SHOULD is there, because if you aren't using why bother checking. 
The MUST NOT is to prevent a really obvious buffer overrun bug in 
implementations

>
> Section 10., what if receive a success or continue in response to
> Session Termination?

Session Termination Response has no status code in draft-20

>
> Table 3, IANA. Odd use of a decimal range (100+) in a binary field. I’d
> suggest 128+.

I wanted to but others objected.

>
> Section 10.2 second paragraph is an example of how this section mixes
> format and usage. As I’ve indicated before, I think it would be clearer
> separated. (Usage as in malformed is OK, that’s part of syntax.)

This has been reworked and moved around in draft-20

>
> Section 10.2, MBZ. I’m not sure about reserved here. Strictly that’s not
> how used in 5226, but on the other hand I think in this kind of case its
> common (I think I’ve done it myself).

I copied from BGP (I think) - but its been fixed.

>
> Section 10., second paragraph, line 3, delete MAY, that’s what zero
> means, not an option. (Any use of MAY needs to be elsewhere, and in any
> case it’s overruled by RECOMMENDED i.e. SHOULD two lines down.)

Sorry, where?

>
> Section 10.6, last line, extensions registry, reference. Note that IANA
> will want this specified if it is a registry, even if empty.

It is now defined.

>
> Section 10.10 (and 10.11). Prefix range should be 0 to 32 (or 128). The
> “subnet” 0.0.0.0/0 is sometimes useful (especially in a MANET or other
> edge network) to say “the (rest of) the Internet is over here”.

Fixed

>
> Section 10.12 You can get some really insane values in the maximum data
> rate (and elsewhere). Of course what’s insane on an HF link is rather
> slow on a UHF link, so not suggesting any specific thing. But is it
> worth saying you MAY reject if this indicates a figure known to be wrong?

Hmm... we don't want to get into defining 'wrong' here.

>
> Section 10.14, what if current > maximum?

Fixed - MUST NOT

>
> Section 10.16, latency being implementation dependent without any hint
> what latency means is hard to compare different radios. Which layers are
> included? Mean or worst case? What about jitter?

We just don't go there.

>
> Section 10.17. This seems the sort of data item there could be more than
> one of. (Actually, I’ve missed any example that’s allowed more than one
> of, though earlier discussion allows it.) But if so, there would have to
> be more than one kind of resource (which there could be) with a code –
> even if all codes are private.

Resources have been reworded in draft-20.

>
> Section 10.17 (and elsewhere). If it can’t be calculated it SHOULD NOT
> be issued. Seems more like a MUST NOT to me.

Fixed to MUST NOT.

And finally to part 7!

Rick