Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:02:22 +0100

*Hi Stan,*

I have some comments, as below to some sections until 7.4 , I read so far

Abdussalam
------------------------

In Abstract
+++++++++++++
> in order to make forwarding decisions
(recommend replace : decisions, to: and routing decisions)
neighbour discover usually are updated at the routing,

recommend to specify options: In mobile or fixed environments,

manual configurations or the  inference of state through routing or
transport protocols does not allow the router to make the best decisions.

(not clear because I think routers only decisions, they process the adaptive
routing algorithm; maybe change to: accurate adaptive decisions)

A bidirectional, event-driven communication channel between the router and
the modem is necessary. (the reasons are not clear, why necessary this
method only)
recommend change to: necessary for correct adaptive routing...because of
unpredicted events
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In Introduction:

>DLEP utilizes a session paradigm between the modem device and its

>associated router. If multiple modem devices are attached to a

>router, a separate DLEP session MUST exist for each modem. If a modem

>device supports multiple connections to a router (via multiple

>interfaces), or supports connections to multiple routers, a separate
>DLEP session MUST exist for each connection.

if there is only one channel DLEP for each peer why do we need two ID
(client and router) as in 7.1 (not sure!)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*In Assumption*

++++++++++++

*should* be the MAC address of the next-hop router or end-

device, and not the MAC address of any of the intervening modem

devices.  (SHOULD)

 Some issues are not specified as the link assumptions and link's
connectivity, as was mentioned in introduction different events of link, or
environment, network size, etc.

In 7.1

++++++++++

"Peer Discovery" and "Peer Offer" messages described *below*. (please
specify where, page or section).

While reading through the messages format and packet it was difficult to
relate them to their functionality, within the big picture,

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanking you

Abdussalam

---

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:40:40 -0400

Thanks for your comments. I'm working on an update to the draft. No  
ETA yet.

Regards,
Stan

On Jun 28, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> Hi Stan,
> (not clear because I think routers only decisions, they process the  
> adaptive routing algorithm; maybe change to: accurate adaptive  
> decisions)
>
> A bidirectional, event-driven communication channel between the  
> router and the modem is necessary. (the reasons are not clear, why  
> necessary this method only)
> recommend change to: necessary for correct adaptive  
> routing...because of unpredicted events
> if there is only one channel DLEP for each peer why do we need two  
> ID (client and router) as in 7.1 (not sure!)
> In Assumption
> should be the MAC address of the next-hop router or end-
> connectivity, as was mentioned in introduction different events of  
> link, or environment, network size, etc.
>
> In 7.1
> ++++++++++
> "Peer Discovery" and "Peer Offer" messages described below. (please  
> While reading through the messages format and packet it was  
> difficult to relate them to their functionality, within the big  
> picture,
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet