Subject: Re: [manet] New DLEP extension drafts

From: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:22:06 +0000

Hi All,

Has anyone got any comments on either of these drafts?

@Henning: I know you expressed an interest in the DSA extension
functionality.

@TheChairs: I'm still requesting working group adoption for both of
these?

Cheers,

Rick

On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 10:00 +0000, Rick Taylor wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I have just submitted updated drafts for DLEP Link Identifiers, and
> upreved my old draft for DLEP Destination Service Announcement.
> 
> hhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dlep-lid/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-taylor-manet-dlep-dsa/
> 
> Please feel free to review and comment, as I am asking for working
> group adoption for both drafts.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rick
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:33:05 +0200

> @Henning: I know you expressed an interest in the DSA extension

Give me a few more days to look at them, I have been busy upgrading
out DLEP code to RFC level the last weeks...

We discovered that we definitely NEED this kind of extension to handle
IPsec based crypto over DLEP capable radios... otherwise we cannot
reach the local services anymore.

Henning

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 08:17:39 +0200

> Hi All,

Okay, time to get the ball rolling for service discovery.

I must admit I am not that happy with the draft in its current form.

First reason is the that the draft focuses on announcing router services 
to other routers. This makes it practically necessary to add an over the 
air component to DLEP. I thought we agreed that one of the design goals 
of DLEP was only to communicate between the local radio and the local 
router, exchanging already existing local knowledge.

I think DLEP is the wrong protocol to exchange knowledge between routers 
and I am sure the IETF already has protocols for the two routers 
exchanging service information.

What I had expected in this draft was a way for the radio to announce 
its LOCAL services to the router, e.g. a SIP endpoint to connect your 
routers VOIP network to a locally existing "push to talk" voice channel. 
Other examples would be to announce the existence of HTTP ip/port 
(configuration GUI) or a netconf/ssh port.

The second (minor) issue I have with the draft is the text string used 
to identify the service. It feels a bit "out of place" in all the binary 
encoded data DLEP transfers.

Henning Rogge

-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Zanderstrasse 5, 53177 Bonn, Germany
Telefon +49 228 50212-469
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de