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

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:27:09 +0000

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.)

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).

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.)

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

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".

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?

Section 10.14, what if current > maximum?

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?

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.

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

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************