Subject: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:22:51 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 11.7
The MAC address encoding on the wire seems to be wrong. Instead of using
6 bytes for MAC-48 the document seems to using 8 bytes. Similarly for
EUI-64 the document seems to be using 12 bytes instead of 8. Please fix
this (Also Note that the length values specified under the format of the
data item seem to be correct i.e. 6 & 8 - it is the data item format that
is wrong)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Sections 11.2, 11.3, 11.9 and 11.10
The IPv4 and IPv6 addresses do not seem to be aligned on word boundaries.
Didn't you face any inefficiencies/difficulties due to this in your
implementations (I saw there were four independent ones)? 

* Section 11.11.1
Agree with Alia's point that there seems to be a typo in "IPv4 Attached
Subnet"

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:55:36 +0100

DLEP does not use any padding on single TLVs, so you must be able to
parse a TLS beginning on an unaligned address anyways.

Henning Rogge

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:01:29 +0000

> parse a TLS beginning on an unaligned address anyways.

Thanks Henning. That makes sense. Any thoughts regarding my DISCUSS point?

Regards
Suresh

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 20:02:49 +0100

> Thanks Henning. That makes sense. Any thoughts regarding my DISCUSS point?

You are right, there is one "line" too much for the MAC address, if we
remove it we get down to the 6/8 bytes we need.

Henning

---

From: "Ratliff, Stanley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:06:49 +0000

Suresh, 

FWIW, your DISCUSS point on Section 11.7 is absolutely correct. There is an error in the ASCII art in that section. We will fix with the next revision. 

Regards,
Stan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 2:01 PM
> To: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
> Cc: The IESG <[email-masked]>; MANET IETF <[email-masked]>; draft-ietf-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> >> * Sections 11.2, 11.3, 11.9 and 11.10 The IPv4 and IPv6 addresses do
> >> not seem to be aligned on word boundaries.

============================================================================================================================================
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.