From Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com Thu Jan 2 03:54:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C161AC421 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 03:54:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.737 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.737 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AsE019MZA5iJ for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 03:54:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ukmta3.baesystems.com (ukmta3.baesystems.com [20.133.40.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC821AE30F for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 03:54:39 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,590,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="338557037" Received: from unknown (HELO baemasodc005.greenlnk.net) ([10.108.52.29]) by Baemasodc001ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 02 Jan 2014 11:54:31 +0000 From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,590,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="40830286" Received: from glkxh0005v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.36]) by baemasodc005.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 02 Jan 2014 11:54:31 +0000 Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.5.67]) by GLKXH0005V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 11:54:31 +0000 To: Justin Dean , Thomas Heide Clausen , "manet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Routing MPR Optimization for OLSRv2 review Thread-Index: AQHO8RhDyImsvXwaUEGueB/H4VoS55pxfyXw Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 11:54:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D4F6CGLKXM0002VGREEN_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [manet] Routing MPR Optimization for OLSRv2 review X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:54:42 -0000 --_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D4F6CGLKXM0002VGREEN_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the comments Justin As this review was received after the end of WGLC, the authors (I believer = Thomas is also of this view, he can correct me if not) propose handling the= se comments together with others received during IETF LC, which should now = start (the Christmas break seemed easier to wait over). One point I think we should stress more heavily is that we do not repeat th= e rationale for the exclusions, that's already in the referenced metrics ID= (RFC 6966-to-be). Familiarity with the relevant section of the ID is assum= ed. -- Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http:= //www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 From: Justin Dean [mailto:bebemaster@gmail.com] Sent: 04 December 2013 17:43 To: Thomas Heide Clausen; manet@ietf.org; Dearlove, Christopher (UK) Subject: Routing MPR Optimization for OLSRv2 review *** WARNING *** This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an exter= nal partner or the internet. Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachme= nts or reply. For information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you= receive, click here. If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process. I have attached my review for the MPR Optimization draft. Justin ******************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************** --_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D4F6CGLKXM0002VGREEN_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks for the comments J= ustin

 <= /p>

As this review was receiv= ed after the end of WGLC, the authors (I believer Thomas is also of this vi= ew, he can correct me if not) propose handling these comments together with others received during IETF LC, which should now start (the = Christmas break seemed easier to wait over).

 <= /p>

One point I think we shou= ld stress more heavily is that we do not repeat the rationale for the exclu= sions, that’s already in the referenced metrics ID (RFC 6966-to-be). Familiarity with the relevant section of the ID is assumed.

 <= /p>

chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (O= perations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

 <= /p>

From: Justin Dean [mailto:bebemaster@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 December 2013 17:43
To: Thomas Heide Clausen; manet@ietf.org; Dearlove, Christopher (UK)=
Subject: Routing MPR Optimization for OLSRv2 review

 

 

*** WARNING ***=

This message originates from outside our organ= isation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Co= nsider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachment= s or reply.
Fo= r information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you rec= eive, click here.
If= you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process.

I have attached my review for the MPR Optimization d= raft.

 

Justin

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************

--_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D4F6CGLKXM0002VGREEN_-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Thu Jan 2 12:25:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1A01ADF91 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:25:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B42LCcBqEyUL for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:25:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A1C1ADF59 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:25:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id lj1so14981677pab.15 for ; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:25:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=L3UEwpoPcrT/qmAWcSErxBYvN/M4EcBXoEelG+yzdDE=; b=uB+vKEeyA3ZuowRL5xybolywQhpBinVoizObcfwWM+vqt5qP4VXt1GHnnhVMI6jh3I isVqEvEgWwce8RDDCRNBdYSN+2VpYJ6srhydm5coimMN5bttwYSwuFTH21ydBhbEaZKn NkfjFGbgSRPxGKRbTE8pJCVc8IY3UYyNwJmvwUli2HjvbVlAJPrBlckhqGOgXKDQw5Hk 1i6pH1LftapjwT0VWMeV71K2rEL6CYOBoj72m0Qir3YbOzCgkSH9T3QYdnUl4kKA+uue GiYovrMsWXMNoZpivRrJxN/5AGhgYDKpeT0P2UFtFXGWCc90iuWGHbBfxwn7PQvSUIqD ItEg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.154.75 with SMTP id vm11mr91526074pab.124.1388694303287; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:25:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.0.104 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:25:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 21:25:03 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "manet@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [manet] Routing MPR Optimization for OLSRv2 review X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 20:25:12 -0000 This WG document -00 had never changed after adoption. The first reviewer on 11 Nov comments was not influence for new update, and the second reviewer as well, in addition no much discussion on the work, I propose to consider the comments received in MANET WG before next IETF call, On 1/2/14, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > One point I think we should stress more heavily is that we do not repeat the > rationale for the exclusions, that's already in the referenced metrics ID > (RFC 6966-to-be). Familiarity with the relevant section of the ID is > assumed. the reference name is not correct in the draft, it was pointed by the first review and still not amended. AB From chris.dearlove@baesystems.com Fri Jan 3 02:25:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60EE61AD66E for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 02:25:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FRxQAz2EgwrA for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 02:25:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ukmta1.baesystems.com (unknown [20.133.0.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53E71ADF5B for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 02:25:07 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,597,1384300800"; d="jpg'145?scan'145,208,217,145";a="401842915" Received: from unknown (HELO baemasmds017.greenlnk.net) ([10.15.207.104]) by baemasmds003ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2014 10:25:00 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,597,1384300800"; d="jpg'145?scan'145,208,217,145";a="36987863" Received: from glkxh0004v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.35]) by baemasmds017.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2014 10:25:00 +0000 Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.5.67]) by GLKXH0004V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 10:24:59 +0000 From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" To: Jiazi Yi , MANET IETF Thread-Topic: [manet] review of draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization-00 Thread-Index: AQHO3s9g+LbWKHriwUKQlQmUlSpPcppzHc2w Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 10:24:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5280BB8E.6000906@gmail.com> <5280BC3E.7000101@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5280BC3E.7000101@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6] Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D6259GLKXM0002VGREEN_"; type="multipart/alternative" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [manet] review of draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization-00 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:25:12 -0000 --_004_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D6259GLKXM0002VGREEN_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D6259GLKXM0002VGREEN_" --_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D6259GLKXM0002VGREEN_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I failed to respond to this earlier, but my files have the unpublished RFC = 6966 as having the changed title (starting with "Rationale") compared to th= e -04 draft, I presume (my recollection is incomplete) at the request of th= e RFC Editor. Thus I believe the reference is actually correct, but we can = confirm that when RFC 6966 is published. -- Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http:= //www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J= iazi Yi Sent: 11 November 2013 11:15 To: MANET IETF Subject: Re: [manet] review of draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimizatio= n-00 *** WARNING *** This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an exter= nal partner or the internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. For information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you= receive, click here. If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process. And one nit: In the reference, we have [RFC6966-to-be] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and P. Jacquet, "Rationale for the Use of Link Metrics in the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 6966, TBD 2013. I suppose the name of the draft is Link Metrics for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Routing Protocol OLSRv= 2 - Rationale http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale-04 ? Jiazi [cid:image001.jpg@01CF086E.0DD39AB0] Jiazi Yi 11 Nov 2013 12:12 Hi, I had a review of draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization-00. Here ar= e some comments (or some of them, I would rather call questions :) 1. In Section 4: Routing MPR Selection ... then x_1 to x_n may be removed from the set of routing MPRs, if selected. ... The first note: I think we should use RFC2119 term "MAY" here? In fact, this is the part that confuses me most. As the only "action" descr= ibed in the draft, the use of "may" without further explanation when this a= ction should be taken or not is too vague. In the end of the section, anoth= er "RECOMMENDED" is used. Therefore, if I put them together, it is somethin= g like "It is RECOMMENDED that one MAY do foo, bar..." 2. If x_1, x_2 ... x_n are the largest set with corresponding y_1, y_2, ..= . y_n. Should we check all the subsets {x_i} of x_1, ... x_n with the crite= ria d1(x_0) + d2(x_0,y_1) + ... + d2(x_m-1,y_m) < d1(x_m) for m belong to subse= t of x_1, ... x_n? If so, we probably will have a lot combinations to check in a dense network= . If not, the criteria seems to be too harsh to be actually "triggered"? 3. Should this be applied to all types of metrics? A potential affects of t= his draft is that, we can probably have more "hops" around the neighborhood= of the original router, i.e., there is higher possibility of interference.= In some of metrics, the interference is not much considered (because it is= hard to measure). Will it be a problem if we introduce more transmission i= n some scenarios? 4. We have a "Willingness" value to "represents the router's willingness to= be selected as an MPR." Should this need to be considered also? What about= if x_0 has low willingness, while the others x_1, ... x_n have higher will= ingness? 5. In some scenarios, we probably want to have certain redundancy in MPR in= some lossy scenarios? sincerely Jiazi ******************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************** --_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D6259GLKXM0002VGREEN_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I failed to respond to th= is earlier, but my files have the unpublished RFC 6966 as having the change= d title (starting with “Rationale”) compared to the -04 draft, I presume (my recollection is incomplete) at the request of the RFC= Editor. Thus I believe the reference is actually correct, but we can confi= rm that when RFC 6966 is published.

 <= /p>

chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (O= perations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

 <= /p>

From:= manet-bounces@ietf.= org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jiazi Yi
Sent: 11 November 2013 11:15
To: MANET IETF
Subject: Re: [manet] review of draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-opti= mization-00

 

 

*** WARNING ***=

This message originates from outside our organ= isation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Ke= ep this in mind if you answer this message.
Fo= r information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you r= eceive, click here.
If= you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process.

And one nit:

In the reference, we have

   [RFC6966-to-be]
            &nb= sp; Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and P. Jacquet, "Rationale for
            &nb= sp; the Use of Link Metrics in the Optimized Link State
            &nb= sp; Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 6966, TBD 2013.

I suppose the name of the draft is

  Link Metrics for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Routing Protocol = OLSRv2 - Rationale

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationa= le-04 ?

Jiazi


11 Nov 2013 12:12

Hi,

I had a review of draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization-00. Here ar= e some comments (or some of them, I would rather call questions :)

1. In Section 4: Routing MPR Selection
...
then x_1 to x_n may be removed from the set of routing MPRs, if selected. <= br> ...

The first note: I think we should use RFC2119 term "MAY" here? In fact, this is the part that confuses me most. As the only "action&q= uot; described in the draft, the use of "may" without further exp= lanation when this action should be taken or not is too vague. In the end o= f the section, another "RECOMMENDED" is used. Therefore, if I put them together, it is something like "It is RECOMMENDED that = one MAY do foo, bar..."

2.  If x_1, x_2 ... x_n are the largest set with corresponding y_1, y_= 2, ... y_n. Should we check all the subsets {x_i} of x_1, ... x_n with the = criteria

d1(x_0) + d2(x_0,y_1) + ... + d2(x_m-1,y_m) < d1(x_m) for m = belong to subset of x_1, ... x_n?

If so, we probably will have a lot combinations to check in a dense network= . If not, the criteria seems to be too harsh to be actually "triggered= "?


3. Should this be applied to all types of metrics? A potential affects of t= his draft is that, we can probably have more "hops" around the ne= ighborhood of the original router, i.e., there is higher possibility of int= erference. In some of metrics, the interference is not much considered (because it is hard to measure). Will it be a probl= em if we introduce more transmission in some scenarios?

4. We have a "Willingness" value to "represents the router's= willingness to be selected as an MPR." Should this need to be conside= red also? What about if x_0 has low willingness, while the others x_1, ... = x_n have higher willingness?

5. In some scenarios, we probably want to have certain redundancy in MPR in= some lossy scenarios?

sincerely

Jiazi


********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************

--_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D6259GLKXM0002VGREEN_-- --_004_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D6259GLKXM0002VGREEN_ Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg" Content-Description: image001.jpg Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.jpg"; size=1179; creation-date="Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:24:59 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:24:59 GMT" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wBDAAMCAgICAgMCAgIDAwMDBAYEBAQEBAgGBgUGCQgKCgkI CQkKDA8MCgsOCwkJDRENDg8QEBEQCgwSExIQEw8QEBD/2wBDAQMDAwQDBAgEBAgQCwkLEBAQEBAQ EBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBD/wAARCAAZABkDAREA AhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQA AAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3 ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWm p6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEA AwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREAAgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSEx BhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYkNOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElK U1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOEhYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3 uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwDxd/it 4v8ADfiyz+IXxCnkurRIrbUL2a8sYJZrqV4UZlDOmSWYkAZAUYAwBgVKyQK7L837Rf7SXizxL/wn nha88J+HNJSVJrTw9cWNvKGiXG0SM0e4Mwzz8vXjArgljY05Ws2e3RyGviaXtE0vJvX/AIB9t/su /HPwz8Xfh4PEfiHT9N0zVYtSms7iCSKGOSCRGHyoygHjPB4PevRp/vI8yPBqJ0puEt0Sf8NF63/0 O6/9/I/8KfIRznwR4z8OzeNvhhFf6nNNHb2NpY35lkkLfuYo03javOME5I6YrzKlebbilc9nD4ei 7OpKy7nn+rarpLTTFfDcLQzsokdrmQuyo33kYt7c8EDrXDFy7n1dWOHs7Q0e+v5HXfDFbvQ9Lury wF2kVzqn20hbgERgsuB7nAGa9CFaUeWJ8liKEJVJzg9Lnn//AAml9/z83X/fQrqvM4fcPXD4l1j4 afDtrrXI9Mt9S/s06da6Vej7RcP+6KMJLdc+UAeGEu0nkAda5YxvJsdbExilCMtUfMieJ7qXU9pt 5vLdyfKjdljGTz8p7exp/V49DZZlU5XzfmfQWl3dlFoFzJoAbUrCQiR2iYJNBzkl4W+cD3G5f9qo nGXMpMVDE0pxdOL1fRnmf/Cr/H3/AETjxZ/4LJ//AImuj2jI9mjp/wBtb/k5j4gf9hNP/REdWed9 pnz5J/x9L9D/ADFMvod78E/+SueDP+w9Y/8Ao9KRnLc/dupPRP/Z --_004_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D401D6259GLKXM0002VGREEN_-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Jan 16 14:13:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6DB1AD8F0 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:13:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qkmCZeK0slwX for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:13:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B5C1AD8CD for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:13:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0GMCxti001084; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:12:59 GMT Received: from 950129200 (108.26.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.26.108]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0GMCvsh001073 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:12:58 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:12:59 -0000 Message-ID: <04bb01cf1308$1ec64490$5c52cdb0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac8TCA8U0phF67dxR7iU1rcO9+GK0A== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:13:15 -0000 Hi, Nice neat document. Thanks for the work. I have a few comments. We could run these through as IETF last call comments, but on balance I think it would be best to clean up at least the IANA section comments before last call so that IANA gets an unobstructed run at the text. Anyway, knowing the authors, I suspect they would like to tidy the document at this stage. Let me know if I am wrong in my assumption or my comments. Thanks, Adrian === It might be useful to discuss backward compatibility very briefly in Section 3. The point being that it does not matter that existing implementations and deployments do not include these extensions because they will only be used for new protocol features that are, themselves, not supported by those legacy implementations. Thus, if a new implementation attempts a TLV as described in this document, it will not be a problem that a legacy implementation rejects it as badly formed. Conversely, a new implementation must still be able to cope (technically and emotionally) with a legacy implementation that rejects a message as badly formed. --- Section 4.2 had some parsing problems with the first paragraph. Would this work? OLD The TLVs specified in [RFC6130] and [OLSRv2] may be either single- value or multi-value TLVs. In either case, the length of the information encoded in the TLV Value field is the "single-length", defined and calculated as in section 5.4.1 in [RFC5444]. All TLVs specified in [RFC6130] and [OLSRv2] describe TLVs with one or two octet TLV Value field single-length. These are considered the expected values of single-length for a received TLV. NEW The TLVs specified in [RFC6130] and [OLSRv2] may be either single- value or multi-value TLVs. In either case, the length of the information encoded in the TLV Value field is the "single-length", defined and calculated as in section 5.4.1 in [RFC5444]. All TLVs specified in [RFC6130] and [OLSRv2] have a one or two octet TLV Value field and have a "single-length". These are considered the expected values of the TLV Length field for a received TLV. END --- Section 4.2 o A received CONT_SEQ_NUM with a single-length < 2 SHOULD be considered an error. I expect that the "SHOULD" is because you think there is a possibility that a future reason might be found, but: - is that likely - if you do a "SHOULD" you really ought to supply a corresponding "MAY". I suspect you could safely change this to "MUST" and let a future RFC handle the exception if necessary. --- 4.3.2 As the existing definitions of values 1, 2, and 3 behave in that manner, it is likely that this will involve no change to an implementation, but any test of (for example) Value = 1 or Value = 3 MUST be converted to a test of (for example) Value bitand 1 = 1, where "bitand" denotes a bitwise and operation. I prefer not to use 2119 language to describe the inner workings of an implementation. Enough, I think, to say "will need to be..." --- 4.3.3 I am similarly uneasy with the 2119 language in this section that seems to be constraining what goes in the relevant registry. Since this document defines the registry, I think you can just use normal English. --- Section 5.1 It will help IANA if you: 1. Say what the parent registry is 2. Give a name for each registry you are asking them to create --- Section 5.1 This replaces the Description column in Table 6 in [RFC6130] by a reference to this table. It is pedantic, but Section 5 should be restricted to direct instructions to IANA and not include anything else. Thus this text needs to be in a separate section (such as "Changes to RFC 6130") that makes this statement. Similarly for the other tables and other descriptive text in this section (such as that after Tables 4 and 5). --- Section 5.1 Table 4 It is probably sad (and at least amusing) that I puzzled over the "value" column. How, I wondered, can bit 6 take the value 2? I don't think there is anything to do here. Some registries use hex, but the effect is the same. Some registries leave out this column. From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sat Jan 18 08:35:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5C31ADF60 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:35:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.847 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M-lP3D0TK9RU for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:35:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D3D1ADF69 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:35:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0IGZJrW009354; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:35:19 GMT Received: from 950129200 (13.17.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.17.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0IGZHBT009334 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:35:18 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:35:13 -0000 Message-ID: <06de01cf146b$484b14d0$d8e13e70$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac8Uaz2ljvuI/W8AQxWvgRarsn4Eug== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:35:36 -0000 Hi Authors, I have done my usual AD review of this document and found only a few trivial editorial issues (well, it is a short document, and the authors are reported to be competent). I will start the IETF last call and raise these issues to be addressed as part of the last call. Thanks for the work. Adrian === The Shepherd write-up notes idnits that need to be fixed, but I see none. --- I think MPR could usefully be expanded in the document title, in the Abstract, and on first use in the body. Then you won't need to expand it in Section 3. --- It seems odd that Section 4 has a bullet numbered "1." but no other numbered bullets. --- I think Section 4 uses the notation of 18.2 of [OLSRv2] not 18.3. At least, that is where d1() etc. are defined for revision -19 of that document. --- From ulrich@herberg.name Sat Jan 18 09:11:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA591ADF78 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:11:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3b-PRgWbHal4 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:11:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x22e.google.com (mail-ve0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140371ADF71 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:11:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id pa12so121267veb.33 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:11:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=WanZQmIivRIhAXX3XEuAsEMhWxa69c96tDPBD1pIt4g=; b=Jo9S9YtaFZ4L6RamiDiKJyuo+tEJnqcFW8c5kGLOyUfizmXAyh/HH3bSMrD80aX7s2 RIVrKlvSF6ZSg6bhjeznGukQWzpW+X39tpzjL+dg+0ZAAnlQnVWvYzdf7B3PCZhNETvF 4P0FYx1EvCo0mB5KeMvHCNFYzR3plOA5rxugc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WanZQmIivRIhAXX3XEuAsEMhWxa69c96tDPBD1pIt4g=; b=QiQh4hUN5+oyr3jMWxe96b5UyA0r6eas7UU7kd3ogSn64CZj/cZ2cCxqjGVJUJeHX8 nvQtrqXngQHUDRKBfnZDxFF6M26k9jCdtfdV7XFJoEkvlZD+sa+XquJg3ON/p0BBmp72 GTqxfCVHkHxwkW7Rh/0iUG2e0tXUGY8JkBQzw/bVNNxl5RLk73nA4ZeFVObUnqHKBodM UFFDVq3oIsq5kRoRu/QgSrjyfNk0ryP8PrmBUeo13Qapgw8iWt6AzLdcd6ppmQdvV29l 17vXAEA3dTS5IkUPSR93p3ARf1re4zWcRtYbghnvDvyjPt0Zay8/xu56RXOa3xpmAyAX 3w7w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkLB6qDYFqa4AfV2NzhBJ/40XJ1jc2bc1XNV/HuFxILE4Cnr2aWSVl3lZaFe7dOyNjZag8n MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.174.200 with SMTP id u8mr4721383vcz.6.1390065092019; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:11:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.230.9 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:11:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <06de01cf146b$484b14d0$d8e13e70$@olddog.co.uk> References: <06de01cf146b$484b14d0$d8e13e70$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:11:31 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149ca3a065fb004f041c0a9 Cc: manet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:11:47 -0000 --089e0149ca3a065fb004f041c0a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Adrian, thank you very much for the review. The idnit I meant is not an error, just a warning: "The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year" That should be a trivial fix. Best regards Ulrich On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Authors, > > I have done my usual AD review of this document and found only a few > trivial editorial issues (well, it is a short document, and the > authors are reported to be competent). > > I will start the IETF last call and raise these issues to be addressed > as part of the last call. > > Thanks for the work. > > Adrian > > === > > The Shepherd write-up notes idnits that need to be fixed, but I see > none. > > --- > > I think MPR could usefully be expanded in the document title, in the > Abstract, and on first use in the body. Then you won't need to expand > it in Section 3. > > --- > > It seems odd that Section 4 has a bullet numbered "1." but no other > numbered bullets. > > --- > > I think Section 4 uses the notation of 18.2 of [OLSRv2] not 18.3. At > least, that is where d1() etc. are defined for revision -19 of that > document. > > --- > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > --089e0149ca3a065fb004f041c0a9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Adrian,

thank you very much = for the review.

The idnit I meant is not an error, just a war= ning:

"The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyrig= ht Line does not match the current year"

That should be a trivial fix= .

Best regards
Ulrich



On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk&= gt; wrote:
Hi Authors,

I have done my usual AD review of this document and found only a few
trivial editorial issues (well, it is a short document, and the
authors are reported to be competent).

I will start the IETF last call and raise these issues to be addressed
as part of the last call.

Thanks for the work.

Adrian

=3D=3D=3D

The Shepherd write-up notes idnits that need to be fixed, but I see
none.

---

I think MPR could usefully be expanded in the document title, in the
Abstract, and on first use in the body. =A0Then you won't need to expan= d
it in Section 3.

---

It seems odd that Section 4 has a bullet numbered "1." but no oth= er
numbered bullets.

---

I think Section 4 uses the notation of 18.2 of [OLSRv2] not 18.3. At
least, that is where d1() etc. are defined for revision -19 of that
document.

---

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--089e0149ca3a065fb004f041c0a9-- From chris.dearlove@baesystems.com Mon Jan 20 02:00:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81C71A00C7 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:00:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.403 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jqn5Q1SjTVdV for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ukmta1.baesystems.com (unknown [20.133.0.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D621F1A00C9 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:00:18 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,689,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="406248667" Received: from unknown (HELO baemasmds017.greenlnk.net) ([10.15.207.104]) by baemasmds003ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2014 10:00:18 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,689,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="38612124" Received: from glkxh0002v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.33]) by baemasmds017.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2014 10:00:18 +0000 Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.5.106]) by GLKXH0002V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:00:18 +0000 From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization.all@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization Thread-Index: Ac8Uaz2ljvuI/W8AQxWvgRarsn4EugBWj14g Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:00:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: <06de01cf146b$484b14d0$d8e13e70$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <06de01cf146b$484b14d0$d8e13e70$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:00:21 -0000 Adrian Thanks for these. With regard to MPR, I think this has, at least among people working with MP= R, a more familiar term than its expansion. So I think the title is better = with MPR than MultiPoint Relay. Expansion in abstract is a style thing, I'v= e tended to be influenced by people who don't like it in an abstract. But I= haven't checked RFC style. But it certainly should be expanded in the Intr= oduction, not for the first time in Section 3. I know why Section 4 has a single bullet numbered 1, which is that througho= ut the OLSRv2 documents we've used numbers for algorithm/specification bull= ets, and bullets for other lists. Whether that's sufficient justification I= don't know. (I don't know if it's happened elsewhere, I suspect it has. If= so I'm inclined to leave it.) Yes, should be 18.2. -- = Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194=A0| Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 -----Original Message----- From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 18 January 2014 16:35 To: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message origi= nates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or fro= m the internet. Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachme= nts or reply. Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions o= n reporting suspicious email messages. -------------------------------------------------------- Hi Authors, I have done my usual AD review of this document and found only a few trivia= l editorial issues (well, it is a short document, and the authors are repor= ted to be competent). I will start the IETF last call and raise these issues to be addressed as p= art of the last call. Thanks for the work. Adrian =3D=3D=3D The Shepherd write-up notes idnits that need to be fixed, but I see none. --- I think MPR could usefully be expanded in the document title, in the Abstra= ct, and on first use in the body. Then you won't need to expand it in Sect= ion 3. --- It seems odd that Section 4 has a bullet numbered "1." but no other numbere= d bullets. --- I think Section 4 uses the notation of 18.2 of [OLSRv2] not 18.3. At least,= that is where d1() etc. are defined for revision -19 of that document. --- _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ******************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************** From adrian@olddog.co.uk Mon Jan 20 02:43:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAAA1A00F6 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:43:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FVProCZGeWmQ for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:43:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B4E1A00F4 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:43:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0KAhFMV004614; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:43:15 GMT Received: from 950129200 (13.17.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.17.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0KAhBdg004573 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:43:14 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)'" , References: <06de01cf146b$484b14d0$d8e13e70$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:43:13 -0000 Message-ID: <086301cf15cc$6dba47b0$492ed710$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJo0NtZlB37Puvi0mGXnd9zolZxjgKiVL1vmUTjnVA= Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: No Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:43:19 -0000 Thanks! OK, leave the document title. RFC Editor house style has expansion in = Abstract, so we'll go that way (it'll end up happening anyway). I can live with a single bullet numbered 1. All I can say is that you = will probably get to answer the same question another five of six times = before publication :-) I expect the last call announcement to come out today. For the sake of = form I will then send my comments and you can respond in a perfect piece of = rehearsed pageantry, and then at the end of last call you can do the updates. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) = [mailto:chris.dearlove@baesystems.com] > Sent: 20 January 2014 10:00 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr- > optimization.all@tools.ietf.org > Cc: manet@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [manet] AD review of = draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization >=20 > Adrian >=20 > Thanks for these. >=20 > With regard to MPR, I think this has, at least among people working = with MPR, a > more familiar term than its expansion. So I think the title is better = with MPR than > MultiPoint Relay. Expansion in abstract is a style thing, I've tended = to be > influenced by people who don't like it in an abstract. But I haven't = checked RFC > style. But it certainly should be expanded in the Introduction, not = for the first > time in Section 3. >=20 > I know why Section 4 has a single bullet numbered 1, which is that = throughout the > OLSRv2 documents we've used numbers for algorithm/specification = bullets, and > bullets for other lists. Whether that's sufficient justification I = don't know. (I don't > know if it's happened elsewhere, I suspect it has. If so I'm inclined = to leave it.) >=20 > Yes, should be 18.2. >=20 > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194=A0| Fax: +44 1245 242124 > chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com >=20 > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace = Centre, > Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 18 January 2014 16:35 > To: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization.all@tools.ietf.org > Cc: manet@ietf.org > Subject: [manet] AD review of = draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization >=20 > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from > outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet. > Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any = attachments > or reply. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for = instructions on > reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Hi Authors, >=20 > I have done my usual AD review of this document and found only a few = trivial > editorial issues (well, it is a short document, and the authors are = reported to be > competent). >=20 > I will start the IETF last call and raise these issues to be addressed = as part of the > last call. >=20 > Thanks for the work. >=20 > Adrian >=20 > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > The Shepherd write-up notes idnits that need to be fixed, but I see = none. >=20 > --- >=20 > I think MPR could usefully be expanded in the document title, in the = Abstract, > and on first use in the body. Then you won't need to expand it in = Section 3. >=20 > --- >=20 > It seems odd that Section 4 has a bullet numbered "1." but no other = numbered > bullets. >=20 > --- >=20 > I think Section 4 uses the notation of 18.2 of [OLSRv2] not 18.3. At = least, that is > where d1() etc. are defined for revision -19 of that document. >=20 > --- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 > ************************************************************** > ****** > 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. > ************************************************************** > ****** From jonathan.kirchhoff@fkie.fraunhofer.de Mon Jan 20 09:21:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2741A0177 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:21:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EOzmcoNp5YfR for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:21:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de (mailguard.fkie.fraunhofer.de [128.7.3.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21261A015E for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufsun5.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.2.5] helo=mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1W5IXQ-0000Ee-H6 for manet@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:21:28 +0100 Received: from mailserv2bcas.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.96.56] helo=mailserv2.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1W5IXQ-0004Op-Dd for manet@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:21:28 +0100 Received: from MAILSERV2A.lorien.fkie.fgan.de ([169.254.1.244]) by MAILSERV2BCAS.lorien.fkie.fgan.de ([128.7.96.56]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:21:28 +0100 From: "Kirchhoff, Jonathan" To: "manet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19 Thread-Index: AQHPFgQNe4zAETMlgkeOkgs+IUY/yA== Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:21:27 +0000 Message-ID: <52DD5B1A.5020006@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [128.7.3.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-ID: <5706A022A8AEFF4EBCDCE49BC7A88197@lorien.fkie.fgan.de> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.97.8/18374/Mon Jan 20 14:32:12 2014) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de X-Scan-Signature: 312de22fb1d788d013e351878bb69aa3 Subject: [manet] Questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:23:14 -0000 Dear MANET group members, I'm currently working on an implementation of MPRs according to draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19, and I have come across some statements in the draft that seem unclear. I'd really appreciate it if someone could comment on these points. 1.) Flooding MPR selector state In section 8.1 (page 31), it is stated that the flooding MPR selector state is to be recorded in the link set as L_mpr_selector. The other states (Flooding MPR; Routing MPR / MPR selector) are recorded per neighbor. What is the reason for having L_mpr_selector in the link set? Since the MPR selection is recorded per-neighbor, this variable might intuitively be part of the neighbor set as well. 2.) Message forwarding decision --- Quote from section 14.3 (Page 47): 3. Otherwise if the sending address matches (taking account of any address prefix) any network address in an L_neighbor_iface_addr_list of a Link Tuple in the Link Set for the receiving OLSRv2 interface that has L_status =3D SYMMETRIC and whose corresponding Neighbor Tuple has N_mpr_selector =3D true, then: --- This part refers to the variable N_mpr_selector, which records the routing MPR selector state. If I'm not mistaken, this should refer to L_mpr_selector instead. 3.) Notation of neighbor graph sets --- Quote from section 18.2 (Page 72): A Neighbor Graph is a structure defined here as consisting of sets N1 and N2 and some associated metric and willingness values. Elements of set N1 represent willing symmetric 1-hop neighbors, and elements of set N2 represent addresses of a symmetric 2-hop neighbor. A Neighbor Graph has the following properties: o It contains two disjoint sets N1 and N2. --- To me, the the notion 'disjoint' suggests that N2 denotes 'strict symmetric 2-hop neighbors' (as in OLSRv1), which are not symmetric 1-hop neighbors at the same time. However, on the same page it reads: --- Quote from section 18.2 (Page 72): For some elements y in N2 there is an associated metric d1(y) > 0. --- To my understanding, d1(y) being defined implies that the same node is reachable directly and is thus part of N1. In this case, the sets would not necessarily be disjoint. As far as I'm concerned, the remaining definitions make sense if the sets are not required to be disjoint as well. As mentioned, I'd be happy to receive some comments on this. Thanks in advance! Best regards Jonathan Kirchhoff --=20 Jonathan Kirchhoff, M.Sc. Communication Systems (KOM) Fraunhofer Institute for Communication, Information Processing and Ergonomics FKIE Institute of Computer Science 4 - University of Bonn Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 144, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone +49 228 73-54204 jonathan.kirchhoff@fkie.fraunhofer.de= From Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com Mon Jan 20 09:45:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3FE1A01B2 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:45:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.435 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DXn2kbbeFr0g for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:45:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ukmta3.baesystems.com (ukmta3.baesystems.com [20.133.40.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA28B1A015E for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:45:03 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,691,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="342723902" Received: from unknown (HELO baemasodc005.greenlnk.net) ([10.108.52.29]) by Baemasodc001ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2014 17:45:03 +0000 From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,691,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="42978990" Received: from glkxh0002v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.33]) by baemasodc005.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2014 17:45:03 +0000 Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.5.106]) by GLKXH0002V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:45:03 +0000 To: "Kirchhoff, Jonathan" , "manet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19 Thread-Index: AQHPFgQNe4zAETMlgkeOkgs+IUY/yJqN3iKw Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:45:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <52DD5B1A.5020006@fkie.fraunhofer.de> In-Reply-To: <52DD5B1A.5020006@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [manet] Questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:45:07 -0000 1. This is probably largely historical, from a slightly different arrangeme= nt some versions back. Though it has the advantage of putting interface rel= ated decision information into a per interface set. But note that you are o= f course free to actually choose to organise your information however you c= hoose in an implementation. 2. Good catch, and nicely timely as we are doing edits with the RFC Edito= r right now and can add this to the list. Note that (see point above) this = gets rid of the Neighbor Tuple here. 3. N1 and N2 are disjoint. If a node is both a 1-hop and 2-hop neighbour, i= t will be represented in both sets, but not by the same member. In fact whe= n you look more closely, in N1 there is something representing a 1-hop neig= hbour (Neighbor Tuple), and 1-hop neighbours have all sorts of baggage, inc= luding multiple addresses (in principle). In N2 there's something represent= ing a 2-Hop Tuple, which has a single (network) address. There could theref= ore be multiple entries in N2 corresponding to an entry in N1. Or of course= an entry in N2 may have no corresponding entry in N1. (Correspondence will= be if the Neighbor Tuple contains the address in the 2-Hop Tuple, which it= may do for several 2-Hop Tuples.) So the point of saying disjoint is to (try to) make it clear that even if e= lements correspond, they are different elements. It's easier that way. (Or = in any case, what the authors proposed, and the WG didn't raise any objecti= ons to. But of course once again, an implementation can do what it likes.) -- = Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194=A0| Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 -----Original Message----- From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kirchhoff, Jonathan Sent: 20 January 2014 17:21 To: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19 ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message origi= nates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or fro= m the internet. Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachme= nts or reply. Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions o= n reporting suspicious email messages. -------------------------------------------------------- Dear MANET group members, I'm currently working on an implementation of MPRs according to draft-ietf-= manet-olsrv2-19, and I have come across some statements in the draft that s= eem unclear. I'd really appreciate it if someone could comment on these points. 1.) Flooding MPR selector state In section 8.1 (page 31), it is stated that the flooding MPR selector state= is to be recorded in the link set as L_mpr_selector. The other states (Flo= oding MPR; Routing MPR / MPR selector) are recorded per neighbor. What is the reason for having L_mpr_selector in the link set? Since the MPR selection is recorded per-neighbor, this variable might intui= tively be part of the neighbor set as well. 2.) Message forwarding decision --- Quote from section 14.3 (Page 47): 3. Otherwise if the sending address matches (taking account of any address= prefix) any network address in an L_neighbor_iface_addr_list of a Link Tup= le in the Link Set for the receiving OLSRv2 interface that has L_status =3D= SYMMETRIC and whose corresponding Neighbor Tuple has N_mpr_selector =3D tr= ue, then: --- This part refers to the variable N_mpr_selector, which records the routing = MPR selector state. If I'm not mistaken, this should refer to L_mpr_selecto= r instead. 3.) Notation of neighbor graph sets --- Quote from section 18.2 (Page 72): A Neighbor Graph is a structure defined here as consisting of sets N1 and N= 2 and some associated metric and willingness values. Elements of set N1 rep= resent willing symmetric 1-hop neighbors, and elements of set N2 represent addresses of a symmetric 2-hop neighbor. A Neighbor Graph has the following properties: o It contains two disjoint sets N1 and N2. --- To me, the the notion 'disjoint' suggests that N2 denotes 'strict symmetric= 2-hop neighbors' (as in OLSRv1), which are not symmetric 1-hop neighbors a= t the same time. However, on the same page it reads: --- Quote from section 18.2 (Page 72): For some elements y in N2 there is an associated metric d1(y) > 0. --- To my understanding, d1(y) being defined implies that the same node is reac= hable directly and is thus part of N1. In this case, the sets would not nec= essarily be disjoint. As far as I'm concerned, the remaining definitions make sense if the sets a= re not required to be disjoint as well. As mentioned, I'd be happy to receive some comments on this. Thanks in advance! Best regards Jonathan Kirchhoff -- Jonathan Kirchhoff, M.Sc. Communication Systems (KOM) Fraunhofer Institute for Communication, Information Processing and Ergonomi= cs FKIE Institute of Computer Science 4 - University of Bonn Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 144, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone +49 228 73-54204 jonat= han.kirchhoff@fkie.fraunhofer.de _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ******************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************** From jonathan.kirchhoff@fkie.fraunhofer.de Mon Jan 20 10:08:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D6E1A01DB for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:08:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.386 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RNOrDi-8ka3H for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:08:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de (mailguard.fkie.fraunhofer.de [128.7.3.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83FB1A01C1 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:08:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufsun5.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.2.5] helo=mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1W5JHC-0006iC-TD; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:08:46 +0100 Received: from mailserv2bcas.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.96.56] helo=mailserv2.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1W5JHC-0004gF-PW; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:08:46 +0100 Received: from MAILSERV2A.lorien.fkie.fgan.de ([169.254.1.244]) by MAILSERV2BCAS.lorien.fkie.fgan.de ([128.7.96.56]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:08:46 +0100 From: "Kirchhoff, Jonathan" To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" , "manet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19 Thread-Index: AQHPFgQNe4zAETMlgkeOkgs+IUY/yJqN3iKw///6ZwA= Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:08:45 +0000 Message-ID: <52DD6630.2020100@fkie.fraunhofer.de> References: <52DD5B1A.5020006@fkie.fraunhofer.de> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [128.7.3.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <99E70C2C0CEBB648B47A5A7ECCF2B4C5@lorien.fkie.fgan.de> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.97.8/18374/Mon Jan 20 14:32:12 2014) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de X-Scan-Signature: 9bea0208ff5bf14e461e230ff4736cfe Subject: Re: [manet] Questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:08:49 -0000 Dear Christopher, many thanks for your quick response. Best regards Jonathan Kirchhoff Am 20.01.2014 18:45, schrieb Dearlove, Christopher (UK): > 1. This is probably largely historical, from a slightly different arrange= ment some versions back. Though it has the advantage of putting interface r= elated decision information into a per interface set. But note that you are= of course free to actually choose to organise your information however you= choose in an implementation. >=20 > 2. Good catch, and nicely timely as we are doing edits with the RFC Edi= tor right now and can add this to the list. Note that (see point above) thi= s gets rid of the Neighbor Tuple here. >=20 > 3. N1 and N2 are disjoint. If a node is both a 1-hop and 2-hop neighbour,= it will be represented in both sets, but not by the same member. In fact w= hen you look more closely, in N1 there is something representing a 1-hop ne= ighbour (Neighbor Tuple), and 1-hop neighbours have all sorts of baggage, i= ncluding multiple addresses (in principle). In N2 there's something represe= nting a 2-Hop Tuple, which has a single (network) address. There could ther= efore be multiple entries in N2 corresponding to an entry in N1. Or of cour= se an entry in N2 may have no corresponding entry in N1. (Correspondence wi= ll be if the Neighbor Tuple contains the address in the 2-Hop Tuple, which = it may do for several 2-Hop Tuples.) >=20 > So the point of saying disjoint is to (try to) make it clear that even if= elements correspond, they are different elements. It's easier that way. (O= r in any case, what the authors proposed, and the WG didn't raise any objec= tions to. But of course once again, an implementation can do what it likes.= ) >=20 --=20 Jonathan Kirchhoff, M.Sc. Communication Systems (KOM) Fraunhofer Institute for Communication, Information Processing and Ergonomics FKIE Institute of Computer Science 4 - University of Bonn Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 144, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone +49 228 73-54204 jonathan.kirchhoff@fkie.fraunhofer.de= From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jan 20 10:15:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D371A0216; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:15:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vfn6OGN3mb12; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:15:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CBC1A023F; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:15:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140120181527.31992.1728.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:15:27 -0800 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-09.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:15:36 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group of t= he IETF. Title : Definition of Managed Objects for the Manet Simpl= ified Multicast Framework Relay Set Process Authors : Robert G. Cole Joseph Macker Brian Adamson Filename : draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-09.txt Pages : 64 Date : 2014-01-20 Abstract: This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects for configuring aspects of the Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF) process for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs). The SMF-MIB module also reports state information, performance information, and notifications. In addition to configuration, the additional state and performance information is useful to operators troubleshooting multicast forwarding problems. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-09 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From hrogge@gmail.com Mon Jan 20 10:18:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3D31A0222 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:18:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V8NohKqfHGuw for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:18:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x229.google.com (mail-qa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CF41A0169 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:18:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id w8so5884987qac.0 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:18:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=U17MG/sdwESZrd/EYxb105D7Qvx0pbsSww7VjXuRNHI=; b=uNGeqxrrdTMWS3IaZ9utyBD/YG7V2tXu+706h0MoyLTjrENG2G28e9ofpJ+szWSHPC Sz0kG9gLzahjWSTBKAtyanV/qSA1/f1WoX4nxyNkr7ViHTl1O+p/VwcbIe7hFuojKi4c rfl/coh+6R0T+2EZjDWI4tYSCaZ0q9rWHmcg3db5B20iJ/mSYbFMBsl83wiUJAEgeKdh 8Ln7khdMjXkIRexJnusEMi1KSm89nez/EG09mFpMcJ1Pf5JS8di6jLuYih/a+jWNkPBf ghswOATsCQomzmyc3f0xi4YWAz2w6qZ8Yr335hwYAUbNSPzP2dM2w62iEQu5EOohy0jS 7o5A== X-Received: by 10.140.97.73 with SMTP id l67mr28781993qge.56.1390241933986; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:18:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.130.9 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:18:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52DD5B1A.5020006@fkie.fraunhofer.de> From: Henning Rogge Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:18:33 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a9cc4a08fc804f06aecbe X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:26:30 -0800 Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] Questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:24:30 -0000 --001a113a9cc4a08fc804f06aecbe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote: > 2. Good catch, and nicely timely as we are doing edits with the RFC > Editor right now and can add this to the list. Note that (see point above) > this gets rid of the Neighbor Tuple here. > I wonder if we should rename the "x_mpr_selector" variables into something like "x_flooding/routing_mpr_selector" to make sure they cannot be mixed up when implementing OLSRv2. It sounds like something that could be done in an editor change because it will change nothing to the protocol but make the description more foolproof. Its not really that important, but it might be a good idea. Henning Rogge --001a113a9cc4a08fc804f06aecbe Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) &= lt;Chris= .Dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
2. =A0 Good catch, and nicely timely as we are doing edits= with the RFC Editor right now and can add this to the list. Note that (see= point above) this gets rid of the Neighbor Tuple here.

I wonder if we should rename the "x_m= pr_selector" variables into something like "x_flooding/routing_mp= r_selector" to make sure they cannot be mixed up when implementing OLS= Rv2. It sounds like something that could be done in an editor change becaus= e it will change nothing to the protocol but make the description more fool= proof.

Its not really that important, but it might be a good i= dea.

Henning Rogge
--001a113a9cc4a08fc804f06aecbe-- From rgcole01@comcast.net Mon Jan 20 10:48:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44D91A022F for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:48:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.468 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FM_ASCII_ART_SPACINGc=0.833, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PMqvh5UeiBq3 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:47:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42DA1A0232 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:47:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.19]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id GFUL1n0010QuhwU55Jny3T; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:47:58 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.174] ([68.32.164.96]) by omta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id GJnw1n00J256LF03NJnxre; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:47:58 +0000 Message-ID: <52DD6F5D.1030602@comcast.net> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:47:57 -0500 From: Cole User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dromasca@avaya.com, manet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib.all@tools.ietf.org, "mib-doctors@ietf.org" , "macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil" , "adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020305010207010509030708" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1390243678; bh=HIK8fFYJ+mnaTPQSyIS0xVMzWNO3Sby42RlStr7c1TU=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=qOPUY5nKxUG1oJmvmNC8f5bIsh26p/ZIcahabrSRawrqe6Ps6WgEqUYkEjxdCT2FB jN7mHNqYQcUmFRVoDl/8GGaAsBaGcCJ/2RFqz76aem+Yy4jfRVFeS5Rh3N+4P9lPDd rhnYU3zlreLboCczadV65iGPmXgH6++TRbbsDVdbxLteyuAO7PC7OG6r/MidAM8l2M fT6GEC9fD+3FMtfLZNWgJCsDRkz5C5LzRg6tgHv1OcYxlvGlI6gD/TBQfdKpdaljw4 x5AjYzE1kRYJ7xOMzs6sTEGWwfXQ07go3Pa4x1DQ7B91AS+zmkPNwHPPHZ1z5SOoMg H+ChbFM2oPdBw== Subject: [manet] 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:48:10 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020305010207010509030708 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan, It took me a while, but I finally completed my revisions to your MIB-DOCTOR review. Your review and my comments and changes are found in the attachment. I have posted version-09. I also attached a copy of it for your convenience. Thanks for all your help and please let me know what further changes are required. Given that the changes were fairly substantial, it may make sense to run through WG last call again. But I'd prefer to wait till it clears (finally) your MIB-DOCTORS review. Bob --------------020305010207010509030708 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="romascanu_corrections.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="romascanu_corrections.txt" Please find below the 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08. 1. Running smilint results in the following level 5 warnings: mibs/SMF-MIB:396: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType' should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:421: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:785: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType' should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:806: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:824: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:1112: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType' should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:1126: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:1140: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object mibs/SMF-MIB:1215: [5] {inetaddresstype-subtyped} warning: `InetAddressType' should not be subtyped mibs/SMF-MIB:1226: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning: `InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object Concerning the first category of warnings ' InetAddressType' should not be subtyped ': indeed, as per RFC 4001: > To support future extensions, the InetAddressType textual convention SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in object type definitions. It MAY be sub-typed in compliance statements in order to require only a subset of these address types for a compliant implementation. I recommend giving up subtyping in the MIB and miving it to the compliance statements for the respective objects. RGC> We have had a similar discussion in the OLSRv2-MIB reviews and within the RGC> working group, specifically the protocol authors on NHDP and OLSRv2. RGC> We had collectively agreed to scope the address support in these protocols RGC> to IPv4 and IPv6 only. I believe this should hold as well for the SMF RGC> protocol framework which is experimental and only defines mechanisms to RGC> support IPv4 and IPv6. My proposal is to leave these SYNTAX statements RGC> as they are, which is consistent with previous WG documents. Is RGC> this OK? Concerning the second category of warnings ' `InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding `InetAdressType' object ': Actually such objects exist but they are defined for a pair of IP addresses for the two ends of a range. The warnings can be ignored, but I recommend to clarify in the DESCRIPTION clauses of each object with an InetAddress SYNTAX what is the relevant object with the InetAddressType SYNTAX. RGC> Yes, I agree. There were several address definitions in pairs to define RGC> ranges and these pairs have only a single InetAddressType object for RGC> each. I modified these to a more standard (type, addr, prefexLength) format. RGC> I hope this is OK? 2. In the abstract: > The SMF-MIB also reports state information, performance metrics, and notifications. It is actually the performance information that is being reported - I suggest to change the wording. RGC> I changed the wording to read "The SMF-MIB also reports iRGC> state information, performance information, and notifications." 3. In Section 4.1: > Figure 1 (reproduced from Figure 4 of [RFC6621]) shows ... Actually Figure 1 here is reproduced from Figure 1 (and not 4) of [RFC6621] RGC> I fixed this. 4. When copying Figure 1 the asterisks in the RFC6621 figure were also copied. They are not relevant (I think) and not explained here - I suggest to delete them. RGC> I agree, I removed them. 5. In several places in the text I see the contruct 'this MIB' (e.g. first bullet in 4.2) or MIBs (e.g. in 6.3) - we prefer to say 'this MIB module'. 'MIB modules' RGC> I searched through the entire document and made these corrections. 6. This document is Experimental and the SMF-MIB is routed under the Experimental subtree. Will the TCs defined here be used only in Experimental MIB modules? If there are any chances that they will be needed in Standards Track MIB modules better take these out and define them in a separate document that defines a separate MIB module under mib-2, otherwise they risk to create downrefs in the future, as RFCs that define IMPORTed TCs must be Normative References. RGC> Three TCs are defined: SmfStatus, SmfOpModeID and SmfRssaID. RGC> I pulled the definition of the later two, now IANAsmfOpModeIdTC and IANAsmfRssaIdTC into RGC> Appendices A and B for eventual maintenance by IANA. I left the RGC> SmfStatus TC in the SMF-MIB. RGC> I hope this is OK? 7. The SmfOpModeID and SmfRssaID have commented enumerated ranges of values for future extensions. These two TCs seem to be good candidates for IANA administered TCs. RGC> I defined a seperate modules for SmfOpModeID and SmfRssaID that IANA can manage. RGC> I placed these in Appendices for now. 8. Most of the optional REFERENCE clauses look like: REFERENCE "RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." These are not useful. Please add specific section numbers that can help implementers of the MIB objects to find easier the information needed for each object. RGC> I have added section references to all of the REFERENCE clauses in RGC> the MIB module. 9. In the DESCRIPTION clause of SmfRssaID: Several are currently defined in the appendix of RFC 6621." There are several appendices in RFC 6621. Which one? RGC> I updated the DESCRIPTION and REFERENCE clauses, now reads: RGC> RGC> IANAsmfRssaIdTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION RGC> STATUS current RGC> DESCRIPTION RGC> "An index that identifies through reference to a specific RGC> RSSA algorithms. Several are currently defined RGC> in the Appendix A, B and C of RFC 6621." RGC> REFERENCE RGC> "See, e.g., RGC> RGC> Section 8.1.1. 'SMF Message TLV Type', RGC> Appendix A. 'Essential Connecting Dominating Set (E-CDS) RGC> Algorithm', RGC> Appendix B. 'Source-Based Multipoint Relay (S-MPR) RGC> Algorithm', and RGC> Appendix C. 'Multipoint Relay Connected Dominating Set RGC> (MPR-CDS) Algorithm' RGC> RGC> in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding RGC> (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." 10. It would be nice if all objects under smfConfigurationGroup (and the following groups) would be similarly prefixed - e.g. smfCfg... RGC> Done. 11. The following definition is problematic: smfOpModeCapabilitiesName OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The textual name of this operational mode. Current operational modes include: 'independent', 'routing', and 'crossLayer' Mode. Others may be defined in future revisions of [SMF]." ::= { smfOpModeCapabilitiesEntry 2 } Why define a redundant SnmpAdminString object, and not an object with the SYNTAX of SmfOpModeID? Especially if the TC will be extended in the future, maybe in a different MIB module. RGC> See response to Comment 14 (below). 12. I do not understand this object: smfOpModeCapabilitiesReference OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object contains a reference to the document that defines this operational mode." ::= { smfOpModeCapabilitiesEntry 3 } This does not seem the type of information that needs to be stored on an agent. How does the agent know this information at all? RGC> See response to Comment 14 (below). 13. The following defintion is problematic: smfRssaCapabilitiesName OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The textual name of this RSSA algorithm. Currently defined names are: 'cF', 'sMPR', 'eCDS', 'mprCDS'. " ::= { smfRssaCapabilitiesEntry 2 } Why define a redundant SnmpAdminString object, and not an object with the SYNTAX of SmfRssaIDID? Especially if the TC will be extended in the future, maybe in a different MIB module. RGC> See response to Comment 14 (below). 14. I do not understand this object: smfRssaCapabilitiesReference OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object contains a published reference to the document that defines this algorithm. " ::= { smfRssaCapabilitiesEntry 3 } This does not seem the type of information that needs to be stored on an agent. How does the agent know this information at all? RGC> I did a fairly extensive rework of the CapabilitiesGroup within the MIB based RGC> upon your comments 11-14 which forced me to rethink the intentions RGC> for these Tables. So I combined these into a single smfCapabilitiesTable RGC> which identifies the possible combinations of the Operational Modes and the RSSAs RGC> that can operate on the specific device. Specifically this table RGC> defines an Index which relates to a tuple (SmfOpModeID, SmfRssaID). The RGC> problematic objects such as the Reference or Name objects, I removed. Also, RGC> now the manager can change the combined Operational Mode and RSSA by RGC> setting the value of the smfCfgOperationalMode to the appropriate RGC> smfCapabilitiesIndex value found within the smfCapabilitiesTable. I hope RGC> this clears up your questions and concerns here. 15. In the DESCRIPTION clause of smfAdminStatus: If this object is 'disabled', then no SMF functions SHOULD be performed on the device and all smfIfAdminStatus objects SHOULD also be set to 'disabled'. First why the SHOULDs? Are there any exceptions? Second - who is this recommendation for? Managers or Agents? If this object is changed from 'enabled' to 'disabled' then MUST all smfIfAdminStatus be turned automatically to 'disabled' or this is something that the manager is supposed to do using SETs? RGC> I changed the DESCRIPTION to read: RGC> RGC> If this object is 'disabled', RGC> then no SMF functions are being performed on RGC> the device and all smfIfAdminStatus objects RGC> MUST also be set to 'disabled'. When this RGC> object is changed from 'enabled' to 'disabled' RGC> by the manager, then all smfIfAdminStatus RGC> objects MUST also be automatically set to RGC> 'disabled' by the agent. 16. In the DESCRIPTION clause of smfRouterID: should select a routable IP address assigned to this router for use as the 'smfRouterID'. To be consistent with the rest this 'should' seems to need capitalization. RGC> I changed the 'should' to 'SHOULD'. RGC> Also, I removed a redundant discussion in the DESCRIPTION RGC> clause of the smfCfgRouterIDAddrType object. 17. In the DESCRIPTION clause of smfRssaMember: The value 'always(1)' forces the selected RSSA include this agent in the RSS. s/always(1)/always(2)/ RGC> Done. 18. in the DESCRIPTION clause of smfDpdMaxMemorySize: The local SMF device should protect itself against the SNMP manager from requesting too large a memory value. If this is the case, What does 'too large a memory value' mean? Is this the higher limit of the range? Then no condition is needed. Is this some other value within the range? How does the agent know it? Maybe there is a need for another object to threshold 'too large'? RGC> I removed this object; is it really necessary in the implementation of SMF? RGC> We have defined a bound on the maximum lifetime RGC> of entries to be maintained in the Dpd cache through the object RGC> 'smfCfgDpdEntryMaxLifetime'. Also defined behavior in the RGC> event that the memory is limited by removing oldest entries first within the RGC> 'smfCfgDpdEntryMaxLifetime' DESCRIPTION. 19. In the same clause: an error indication should be returned in response to the SNMP SET request. Seems like this 'should' needs to be capitalized. RGC> As mentioned above, I removed this object as unnecessary. 20. There is a 'hole' between { smfConfigurationGroup 13} and { smfConfigurationGroup 15}. Where did 14 disappear? RGC> I fixed this. 21. I do not understand the table smfConfiguredAddrForwardingEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfConfiguredAddrForwardingEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry (conceptual row) containing the information on a particular multicast scope." INDEX { smfConfiguredAddrForwardingAddrType, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingFirstAddr, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingLastAddr } ::= { smfConfiguredAddrForwardingTable 1 } SmfConfiguredAddrForwardingEntry ::= SEQUENCE { smfConfiguredAddrForwardingAddrType InetAddressType, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingFirstAddr InetAddress, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingLastAddr InetAddress, smfConfiguredAddrForwardingStatus RowStatus } So there are three indices and one RowStatus object. What kind of information does this table provide? Or what are the consequences of dynamically creating or deleting a row? RGC> This table defines filtering rules for SMF forwarding based upon RGC> multicast address ranges. These are statically configured RGC> in this table. RGC> RGC> The Table description was not clear, so I modified the DESCRIPTION clause RGC> for the table, the entry and all of the table objects. Further, I modified RGC> the object definitions to a more standard method for identifying address ranges RGC> based upon the type, address, addrPrefixLength syntax. RGC> I added an Index object and a groupName object to the Table. The Index is now RGC> the INDEX and the Group name allow for administrative association of RGC> address ranges for filter rules. The address range definitions are now read-create, RGC> so the table now allows a manager to build a set of IP filter rules for multicast RGC> packet forwarding as intended originally. 22. For the object smfIfIndex: The ifIndex for this SMF interface. This value MUST correspond to an ifIndex referring to a valid entry in The Interfaces Table." What happens if the manager creates a row which does not correspond to such a valid entry? RGC> Added the following text to the DESCRIPTION clause: RGC> "If the manager attempts to create a row RGC> for which the ifIndex does not exist on the RGC> local device, then the agent SHOULD issue RGC> a return value of 'inconsistentValue' and RGC> the operation SHOULD fail." 23. The DESCRIPTION clause of smfIfName copies the DESCRIPTION clause of IfName from RFC 2863. If this is exactly the same information this object is not needed, as IfName can always be retrieved for a valid entry in the Interfaces Table. If there is some SMF-specific information that this string carries than the information is missing. In any case the SYNTAX should be SnmpAdminString. RGC> The name is now smfCfgIfName and I chenged the SYNTAX to SnmpAdminString. I left the object RGC> in the MIB module as it is used within some of the smfNotifications to identify the interface RGC> associated with the notification. 24. All counter objects in this MIB module miss discontinuity information, the counters at the agent level, and interface level as well. Is this OK? No need for counter discontinuity objects? (see section 4.6.1.2 in RFC 4181) RGC> No, you are correct, there is the possibility of a discontinuity event for RGC> both the system-wide and interface-specific counters. I added two new RGC> time objects, i.e., 'smfCfgSmfSysUpTime' and smfCfgIfSmfUpTime' with RGC> SYNTAX 'TimeTicks' to allow for an indication of a discontinuity. I also added the RGC> following text (or similar text for interface specific) in the RGC> DESCRIPTION clauses for Counter32 objects: RGC> RGC> "There is the potential for a counter discontinuity RGC> in this object if the system SMF process had been RGC> disabled and later enabled. In order to check for RGC> the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring RGC> this counter object, it is recommended that the RGC> smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." 25. I do not understand the object: smfDiscoveredAddrForwardingSource OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The textual description of the method by which this multicast address range was discovered." ::= { smfDiscoveredAddrForwardingEntry 4 } If I was writing an implementation of this MIB module I would not know where to take this information from and how to express it. How does the agent fill this information and in what format? RGC> As there are no currently defined mechanisms or protocols for the MANET nodes to RGC> dynamically discover multicast address ranges to place into this RGC> table for forwarding decisions, I removed the table. There still reamins RGC> the smfCfgAddrForwardingTable which allows for local and management configuration RGC> of address filtering rules. 26. In the Security Considerations section some of the objects have only a functional description, but not a description of the security risks operators encounter if they are misconfigured. For example 'smfRouterIDAddrType' and 'smfRouterID', 'smfConfiguredOpMode', 'smfIpv4Dpd', o 'smfIpv6Dpd', etc. RGC> Added to the security discussion to indicate the implications of RGC> misconfiguration of the following objects: 'smfCfgRouterIDAddrType' RGC> and 'smfCfgRouterID', smfCfgOpMode, smfCfgRssa, smfCfgIpv4Dpd, RGC> smfCfgIpv6Dpd, smfCfgNhdpRssaMesgTLVIncluded and smfCfgNhdpRssaAddrBlockTLVIncluded. 27. The Applicability Statement section is useful, and I would actually recommend to extend it with an example of agent configuration. RGC> I took a crack at this. I gave an example of the minimum configuration required RGC> to get the device to perform classical flooding. Then I showed how to discover RGC> other operational modes and RSSAs on the device and to switch operation to RGC> a more efficient flooding algorithm like ECDS. If this is not complete enough RGC> or you had something more or else in mind, please let me know. I'll be RGC> glad to work further on this section. Thanks and Regards, RGC> Thank you. Dan --------------020305010207010509030708 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-09.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-09.txt" Internet Engineering Task Force R. Cole Internet-Draft US Army CERDEC Intended status: Experimental J. Macker Expires: July 24, 2014 B. Adamson Naval Research Laboratory January 20, 2014 Definition of Managed Objects for the Manet Simplified Multicast Framework Relay Set Process draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-09 Abstract This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects for configuring aspects of the Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF) process for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs). The SMF-MIB module also reports state information, performance information, and notifications. In addition to configuration, the additional state and performance information is useful to operators troubleshooting multicast forwarding problems. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on July 24, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.1. SMF Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Structure of the MIB Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Textual Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. The Capabilities Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. The Configuration Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.4. The State Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.5. The Performance Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.6. The Notifications Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.7. Tables and Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Relationship to Other MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Relationship to the SNMPv2-MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. MIB modules required for IMPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. Relationship to the Future RSSA-MIB Moduless . . . . . . . 10 7. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 9. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Appendix A. Appendix A: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Appendix B. Appendix B: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Appendix C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 1. Introduction This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects for configuring aspects of a process implementing Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF) [RFC6621] for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs). SMF provides multicast Duplicate Packet Detection (DPD) and supports algorithms for constructing an estimate of a MANET Minimum Connected Dominating Set (MCDS) for efficient multicast forwarding. The SMF-MIB module also reports state information, performance information, and notifications. In addition to configuration, this additional state and performance information is useful to operators troubleshooting multicast forwarding problems. 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. 3. Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 4. Overview SMF provides methods for implementing Duplicate Packet Detection (DPD)-based multicast forwarding with the optional use of Connected Dominating Set (CDS)-based relay sets. The CDS provides a complete connected coverage of the nodes comprising the MANET. The Minimum CDS (MCDS) is the smallest set of MANET nodes (comprising a connected cluster) which cover all the nodes in the cluster with their transmissions. As the density of the MANET nodes increase, the fraction of nodes required in an MCDS decreases. Using the MCDS as a multicast forwarding set then becomes an efficient multicast mechanism for MANETs. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 Various algorithms for the construction of estimates of the MCDS exist. The Simplified Multicast Framework [RFC6621] describes some of these. It further defines various operational modes for a node which is participating in the collective creation of the MCDS estimates. These modes depend upon the set of related MANET routing and discovery protocols and mechanisms in operation in the specific MANET node. A SMF router's MIB module contains SMF process configuration parameters (e.g. specific CDS algorithm), state information (e.g., current membership in the CDS), performance counters (e.g., packet counters), and notifications. 4.1. SMF Management Model This section describes the management model for the SMF node process. Figure 1 (reproduced from Figure 1 of [RFC6621]) shows the relationship between the SMF Relay Set selection algorithm and the related algorithms, processes and protocols running in the MANET nodes. The Relay Set Selection Algorithm (RSSA) can rely upon topology information gotten from the MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), from the specific MANET routing protocol running on the node, or from Layer 2 information passed up to the higher layer protocol processes. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 ______________ ____________ | | | | | Neighborhood | | Relay Set | | Discovery |------------->| Selection | | | neighbor | | |______________| info |____________| \ / \ / neighbor\ / forwarding info \ _____________ / status \ | | / `-->| Forwarding |<--' | Process | ----------------->|_____________|-----------------> incoming packet, forwarded packets interface id , and previous hop Figure 1: SMF Router Architecture 4.2. Terms The following definitions apply throughout this document: o Configuration Objects - switches, tables, objects which are initialized to default settings or set through the management interfaces such as defined by this MIB module. o Tunable Configuration Objects - objects whose values affect timing or attempt bounds on the SMF Relay Set (RS) process. o State Objects - automatically generated values which define the current operating state of the SMF RS process in the router. o Performance Objects - automatically generated values which help an administrator or automated tool to assess the performance of the CDS multicast process on the router and the overall multicast performance within the MANET routing domain. 5. Structure of the MIB Module This section presents the structure of the SMF-MIB module. The objects are arranged into the following groups: o smfMIBNotifications - defines the notifications associated with the SMF process. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 o smfMIBObjects - defines the objects forming the basis for the SMF- MIB module. These objects are divided up by function into the following groups: * Capabilities Group - This group contains the SMF objects that the device uses to advertise its local capabilities with respect to, e.g., the supported RSSAs. * Configuration Group - This group contains the SMF objects that configure specific options that determine the overall operation of the SMF process and the resulting multicast performance. * State Group - Contains information describing the current state of the SMF process such as the Neighbor Table. * Performance Group - Contains objects which help to characterize the performance of the SMF process, typically counters for statistical computations. o smfMIBConformance - defines two, i.e., minimal and full, conformance implementations for the SMF-MIB module. 5.1. Textual Conventions The textual conventions defined within the SMF-MIB module are: o The SmfStatus is defined within the SMF-MIB module. This contains the current operational status of the SMF process on an interface. The textual conventions defined for the SMF-MIB module and maintained by IANA are: o The IANAsmfOpModeIdTC represents an index that identifies a specific SMF operational mode. This textual convention is maintained by IANA in the IANAsmfOpModeID-MIB. o The IANAsmfRssaIdTC represents an index that identifies, through reference, a specific RSSA available for operation on the device. This textual convention is maintained by IANA in the IANAsmfRssaID-MIB. 5.2. The Capabilities Group The SMF device supports a set of capabilities. The list of capabilities which the device can advertise are: Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 o Operational Mode - topology information from NHDP, CDS-aware unicast routing or Cross-layer from Layer 2. o SMF RSSA - the specific RSSA operational on the device. Note that configuration, state and performance objects related to a specific RSSA must be defined within a separate MIB module. 5.3. The Configuration Group The SMF device is configured with a set of controls. Some of the prominent configuration controls for the SMF device are: o Operational Mode - determines where topology information is derived from, e.g., NHDP, CDS-aware unicast routing or Cross-layer from Layer 2. o SMF RSSA - the specific RSSA operational on the device. o Duplicate Packet detection for IPv4 - Identification-based or Hash-based DPD. o Duplicate Packet detection for IPv6 - Identification-based or Hash-based DPD. o SMF Type Message TLV - if NHDP mode is selected, then the SMF Type Message TLV MAY be included in the NHDP exchanges. o SMF Address Block TLV - if NHDP mode is selected, then the SMF Address Block TLV SHOULD be included in the NHDP exchanges. 5.4. The State Group The State sub-tree reports current state information, e.g., o Node RSSA State - identifies whether the node is currently in or out of the Relay Set. o Neighbors Table - a table containing current one-hop neighbors and their operational RSSA. 5.5. The Performance Group The Performance sub-tree reports primarily counters that relate to SMF RSSA performance. The SMF performance counters consists of per node and per interface objects: Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 o Total multicast packets received. o Total multicast packets forwarded. o Total duplicate multicast packets detected. o Per interface statistics table with the following entries: * Multicast packets received. * Multicast packets forwarded. * Duplicate multicast packets detected. 5.6. The Notifications Group The Notifications Sub-tree contains the list of notifications supported within the SMF-MIB module and their intended purpose and utility. 5.7. Tables and Indexing The SMF-MIB module contains a number of tables which record data related to: o configuration and operation of packet forwarding on the local router, o configuration and operation of local MANET interfaces on the router, and o configuration and operation of various RSSA algorithms for packet forwarding. The SMF-MIB module's tables are indexed via the following constructs: o smfCapabilitiesIndex - the index identifying the combination of SMF mode and SMF RSSA available on this device. o smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrType, smfCfgAddrForwardingAddress and smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrPreficLength - indexes to configured multicast addresses which are forwarded by the SMF process. o smfCfgIfIndex - the IfIndex of the interface on the local router on which SMF is configured. o smfStateNeighborIpAddrType, smfStateNeighborIpAddr, and smfStateNeighborPrefixLen - the interface index set of specific Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 one-hop neighbor nodes to this local router. These tables and their associated indexing are: o smfCapabilitiesTable - identifies the resident set of (SMF Operational Modes, SMF RSSA algorithms) available on this router. This table has 'INDEX { smfCapabilitiesIndex }. o smfCfgAddrForwardingTable - contains information on multicast addresses which are to be forwarded by the SMF process on this device. This table has 'INDEX { smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrType, smfCfgAddrForwardingAddress, smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrPrefixLength }'. o smfCfgInterfaceTable - describes the SMF interfaces on this device that are participating in the SMF packet forwarding process. This table has 'INDEX { smfCfgIfIndex }'. o smfStateNeighborTable - describes the current neighbor nodes, their addresses and the SMF RSSA and the interface on which they can be reached. This table has 'INDEX { smfStateNeighborIpAddrType, smfStateNeighborIpAddr, smfStateNeighborPrefixLen }'. o smfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfTable - contains the IPv4 related SMF statistics per each SMF interface on this device. This table has 'INDEX { smfCfgIfIndex }'. o smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfTable - contains the IPv6 related SMF statistics per each SMF interface on this device. This table has 'INDEX { smfCfgIfIndex }'. 6. Relationship to Other MIB Modules 6.1. Relationship to the SNMPv2-MIB The 'system' group in the SNMPv2-MIB module [RFC3418] is defined as being mandatory for all systems, and the objects apply to the entity as a whole. The 'system' group provides identification of the management entity and certain other system-wide data. The SMF-MIB module does not duplicate those objects. 6.2. MIB modules required for IMPORTS The textual conventions imported for use in the SMF-MIB module are as follows. The MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, NOTIFICATION-TYPE, Counter32, Unsigned32, Integer32 and mib-2 textual conventions are imported from RFC 2578 [RFC2578]. The TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, RowStatus Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 and TruthValue textual conventions are imported from RFC 2579 [RFC2579]. The MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP and NOTIFICATION- GROUP textual conventions are imported from RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. The InterfaceIndexOrZero textual convention is imported from RFC 2863 [RFC2863]. The SnmpAdminString textual convention is imported from RFC 3411 [RFC3411]. The InetAddress, InetAddressType and InetAddressPrefixLength textual conventions are imported from RFC 4001 [RFC4001]. 6.3. Relationship to the Future RSSA-MIB Moduless In a sense, the SMF-MIB module is a general front-end to a set of, yet to be developed, RSSA-specific MIB modules. These RSSA-specific MIB modules will define the objects for the configuration, state, performance and notification required for the operation of these specific RSSAs. The SMF-MIB module Capabilities Group allows the remote management station the ability to query the router to discover the set of supported RSSAs. 7. Definitions SMF-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, NOTIFICATION-TYPE, Counter32, Integer32, TimeTicks, experimental FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578] TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, RowStatus, TruthValue FROM SNMPv2-TC -- [RFC2579] MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP, NOTIFICATION-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF -- [RFC2580] InterfaceIndexOrZero FROM IF-MIB -- [RFC2863] SnmpAdminString FROM SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB -- [RFC3411] InetAddress, InetAddressType, InetAddressPrefixLength FROM INET-ADDRESS-MIB -- [RFC4001] Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 10] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 IANAsmfOpModeIdTC FROM IANAsmfOpModeID-MIB IANAsmfRssaIdTC FROM IANAsmfRssaID-MIB ; smfMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "201309011300Z" -- September 01, 2013 ORGANIZATION "IETF MANET Working Group" CONTACT-INFO "WG E-Mail: manet@ietf.org WG Chairs: sratliff@cisco.com jmacker@nrl.navy.mil Editors: Robert G. Cole US Army CERDEC Space and Terrestrial Communications 6010 Frankford Road Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 USA +1 443 395-8744 robert.g.cole@us.army.mil Joseph Macker Naval Research Laboratory Washington, D.C. 20375 USA macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil Brian Adamson Naval Research Laboratory Washington, D.C. 20375 USA adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil" DESCRIPTION "This MIB module contains managed object definitions for the Manet SMF RSSA process defined in: [SMF] Macker, J.(ed.), Simplified Multicast Forwarding, RFC 6621, May 2012. Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2012). This version of this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; see the RFC Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 11] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 itself for full legal notices." -- Revision History REVISION "201309011300Z" -- September 01, 2013 DESCRIPTION "The first version of this MIB module, published as RFC xxxx. " -- RFC-Editor assigns xxxx ::= { experimental xxxx } -- to be assigned by IANA -- -- TEXTUAL CONVENTIONs -- SmfStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An indication of the operability of a SMF function or feature. For example, the status of an interface: 'enabled' indicates that this interface is performing SMF functions, and 'disabled' indicates that it is not. Similarly for the status of the device: 'enabled' indicates that the device has enabled the SMF functions on the device and 'disabled' means that the device and all interfaces have disabled all SMF functions." SYNTAX INTEGER { enabled (1), disabled (2) } -- -- Top-Level Object Identifier Assignments -- smfMIBNotifications OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIB 0 } smfMIBObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIB 1 } smfMIBConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIB 2 } -- -- smfMIBObjects Assignments: -- smfCapabilitiesGroup - 1 Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 12] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 -- smfConfigurationGroup - 2 -- smfStateGroup - 3 -- smfPerformanceGroup - 4 -- -- -- smfCapabilitiesGroup -- -- This group contains the SMF objects that identify specific -- capabilities within this device related to SMF functions. -- smfCapabilitiesGroup OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIBObjects 1 } -- -- SMF Capabilities Table -- smfCapabilitiesTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SmfCapabilitiesEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The smfCapabilitiesTable identifies the resident set of SMF Operational Modes and RSSA combinations that can run on this forwarder." REFERENCE "See Section 7.2. 'Reduced Relay Set Forwarding', Section 8.1.1. 'SMF Message TLV Type', and the Appendices A, B and C in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfCapabilitiesGroup 1 } smfCapabilitiesEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfCapabilitiesEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Information about a particular operational mode and RSSA combination. " INDEX { smfCapabilitiesIndex } ::= { smfCapabilitiesTable 1 } SmfCapabilitiesEntry ::= SEQUENCE { smfCapabilitiesIndex Integer32, Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 13] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 smfCapabilitiesOpModeID IANAsmfOpModeIdTC, smfCapabilitiesRssaID IANAsmfRssaIdTC } smfCapabilitiesIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2147483647) MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The index for this entry; a unique value, greater than zero, for each combination of a particular operational mode and RSSA algorithm available on this device. It is recommended that values are assigned contiguously starting from 1. Rows in this table are automatically populated by the entity's management system on initialization. By default, the agent should support at least the Classical Flooding 'cF' algorithm. All compliant SMF forwarders must support Classical Flooding. Hence, the first entry in this table MUST exist and MUST be defined as: smfCapabilitiesIndex i '1' smfCapabilitiesOpModeID i 'cfOnly(1)' smfCapabilitiesRssaID i 'cF(1)' The value for each combination MUST remain constant at least from one re-initialization of the entity's management system to the next re-initialization." ::= { smfCapabilitiesEntry 1 } smfCapabilitiesOpModeID OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IANAsmfOpModeIdTC MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object identifies the particular operational mode for this device." ::= { smfCapabilitiesEntry 2 } smfCapabilitiesRssaID OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IANAsmfRssaIdTC MAX-ACCESS read-only Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 14] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object identifies the particular RSSA algorithm in this MIB module. Example RSSAs are found in the appendix of RFC 6621." REFERENCE "See, e.g., Section 8.1.1. 'SMF Message TLV Type', and the Appendices A, B and C in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfCapabilitiesEntry 3 } -- -- smfConfigurationGroup -- -- This group contains the SMF objects that configure specific -- options that determine the overall performance and operation -- of the multicast forwarding process for the router device -- and its interfaces. -- smfConfigurationGroup OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIBObjects 2 } smfCfgAdminStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfStatus MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The configured status of the SMF process on this device. 'enabled(1)' means that SMF is configured to run on this device. 'disabled(2)' mean that the SMF process is configured off. Prior to SNM functions being performed over specific interfaces, this object must first be 'enabled'. If this object is 'disabled', then no SMF functions are being performed on the device and all smfIfAdminStatus objects MUST also be set to 'disabled'. When this object is changed from 'enabled' to 'disabled' by the manager, then all smfIfAdminStatus objects MUST also be automatically set to 'disabled' by the agent. The default value for this object SHOULD be Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 15] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 'enabled'. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." DEFVAL { enabled } ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 1 } smfCfgSmfSysUpTime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TimeTicks MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The time (in hundredths of a second) since the system SMF process was last re-initialized. The SMF process is re-initialized when the value of the 'smfCfgAdminStatus' object transitions to 'enabled' from either a prior value of 'disabled' or upon initialization of this device." ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 2 } smfCfgRouterIDAddrType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) } MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The address type of the address used for SMF ID of this router as specified in the 'smfCfgRouterID' next. Only the values ipv4(1) and ipv6(2) are supported. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." DEFVAL { ipv4 } ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 3 } smfCfgRouterID OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddress (SIZE(4|16)) MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The IP address used as the SMF router ID. This can be set by the management station. If not explicitly set, then the device Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 16] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 SHOULD select a routable IP address assigned to this router for use as the 'smfCfgRouterID'. The smfCfgRouterID is a logical identification that MUST be consistent across interoperable SMF neighborhoods and it is RECOMMENDED to be chosen as the numerically largest address contained in a node's 'Neighbor Address List' as defined in NHDP. A smfCfgRouterID MUST be unique within the scope of the operating MANET network regardless of the method used for selecting it. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." REFERENCE "See, e.g., Appendix Section A.1. 'E-CDS Relay Set Selection Overview' and Appendix Secdtion C.1. 'MPR-CDS Relay Set Selection Overview' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 4 } smfCfgOperationalMode OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2147483647) MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMF RSS node operational mode and RSSA algorithm combination active on this local forwarder. This object is defined to be equal to the smfCapabilitiesIndex which identifies the specific active operational mode and RSSA. The default value for this object is '1' which corresponds to: smfCapabilitiesOpModeID i 'cfOnly(1)' smfCapabilitiesRssaID i 'cF(1)' Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 17] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." REFERENCE "See Section 7.2. 'Reduced Relay Set Forwarding', and the Appendices A, B and C in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." DEFVAL { 1 } ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 5 } smfCfgRssaMember OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { potential(1), always(2), never(3) } MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The RSSA downselects a set of forwarders for multicast forwarding. Sometimes it is useful to force an agent to be included or excluded from the resulting RSS. This object is a switch to allow for this behavior. The value 'potential(1)' allows the selected RSSA to determine if this agent is included or excluded from the RSS. The value 'always(2)' forces the selected RSSA include this agent in the RSS. The value 'never(3)' forces the selected RSSA to exclude this agent from the RSS. The default setting for this object is 'potential(1)'. Other settings could pose operational risks under certain conditions. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." REFERENCE "See Section 7. 'Relay Set Selection' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." DEFVAL { potential } Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 18] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 6 } smfCfgIpv4Dpd OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { hashBased(1), identificationBased(2) } MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The current method for IPv4 duplicate packet detection. The value 'hashBased(1)' indicates that the routers duplicate packet detection is based upon comparing a hash over the packet fields. This is the default setting for this object. The value 'identificationBased(2)' indicates that the duplicate packet detection relies upon header information in the multicast packets to identify previously received packets. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." REFERENCE "See Section 6.2. 'IPv4 Duplicate Packet Detection' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." DEFVAL { hashBased } ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 7 } smfCfgIpv6Dpd OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { hashBased(1), identificationBased(2) } MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The current method for IPv6 duplicate packet detection. The values indicate the type of method used for duplicate packet detection as described Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 19] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 the previous description for the object `smfCfgIpv4Dpd'. The default value for this object is 'hashBased(1)'. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." REFERENCE "See Section 6.1. 'IPv6 Duplicate Packet Detection' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." DEFVAL { hashBased } ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 8 } smfCfgMaxPktLifetime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..65535) UNITS "Seconds" MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The estimate of the network packet traversal time. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." REFERENCE "See Section 6. 'SMF Duplicate Packet Detection' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." DEFVAL { 60 } ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 9 } smfCfgDpdEntryMaxLifetime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..65525) UNITS "Seconds" MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The maximum lifetime of a cached DPD record in the local device storage. If the memory is running low prior to the MaxLifetimes being exceeded, the local SMF Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 20] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 devices should purge the oldest records first. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." REFERENCE "See Section 6. 'SMF Duplicate Packet Detection' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." DEFVAL { 600 } ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 10 } -- -- Configuration of messages to be included in -- NHDP message exchanges in support of SMF -- operations. -- smfCfgNhdpRssaMesgTLVIncluded OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TruthValue MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Indicates whether the associated NHDP messages include the RSSA Message TLV, or not. This is an optional SMF operational setting. The value 'true(1)' indicates that this TLV is included; the value 'false(2)' indicates that it is not included. It is RECOMMENDED that the RSSA Message TLV be included in the NHDP messages. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." REFERENCE "See Section 8.1.1. 'SMF Message TLV Type' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." DEFVAL { true } ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 11 } smfCfgNhdpRssaAddrBlockTLVIncluded OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TruthValue MAX-ACCESS read-write Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 21] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Indicates whether the associated NHDP messages include the RSSA Address Block TLV, or not. This is an optional SMF operational setting. The value 'true(1)' indicates that this TLV is included; the value 'false(2)' indicates that it is not included. The smfCfgNhdpRssaAddrBlockTLVIncluded is optional in all cases as it depends on the existence of an address block which may not be present. If this SMF device is configured with NHDP, then this object SHOULD be set to 'true(1)'. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." REFERENCE "See Section 8.1.2. 'SMF Address Block TLV Type' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." DEFVAL { true } ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 12 } -- -- Table identifying configured multicast addresses to be forwarded. -- smfCfgAddrForwardingTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SmfCfgAddrForwardingEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The (conceptual) table containing information on multicast multicast addresses which are to be forwarded by the SMF process. This table represents an IP filters table for forwarding (or not) packets based upon their IP multicast address. The SMF process can be configured to forward only those multicast addresses found within the smfCfgAddrForwardingTable. As such, addresses which are to be forwarded by the SMF process MUST be found within the address ranges configured within this table, unless this table is empty. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 22] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 Each row is associated with a range of multicast addresses, and ranges for different rows must be disjoint. Different rows MAY share a common smfCfgAddrForwardingGroupName to administratively associate different rows. The objects in this table are persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." REFERENCE "See Section 9.1. 'Forwarded Multicast Groups' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 13 } smfCfgAddrForwardingEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfCfgAddrForwardingEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry (conceptual row) containing the information on a particular multicast scope." INDEX { smfCfgAddrForwardingIndex } ::= { smfCfgAddrForwardingTable 1 } SmfCfgAddrForwardingEntry ::= SEQUENCE { smfCfgAddrForwardingIndex Integer32, smfCfgAddrForwardingGroupName SnmpAdminString, smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrType InetAddressType, smfCfgAddrForwardingAddress InetAddress, smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrPrefixLength InetAddressPrefixLength, smfCfgAddrForwardingStatus RowStatus } smfCfgAddrForwardingIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2147483647) MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object identifies an unique entry for a forwarding group. The index for this entry is a unique value, greater than zero, for each row. It is recommended that values are assigned contiguously starting from 1. The value for each row index MUST remain constant from one re-initialization Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 23] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 of the entity's management system to the next re-initialization." ::= { smfCfgAddrForwardingEntry 1 } smfCfgAddrForwardingGroupName OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object identifies a group name for a set of row entries in order to administratively associate a set of address ranges. If there is no group name or this object is otherwise not applicable, then this object contains a zero-length string. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." ::= { smfCfgAddrForwardingEntry 2 } smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) } MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The type of the addresses in the multicast forwarding ranges identified by this table. Only the values ipv4(1) and ipv6(2) are supported. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." ::= { smfCfgAddrForwardingEntry 3 } smfCfgAddrForwardingAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddress (SIZE(4|16)) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The multicast group address which, when combined with smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrPrefixLength, gives the group prefix for this forwarding range. The InetAddressType is given by smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrType. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 24] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 This address object is only significant up to smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrPrefixLength bits. The remaining address bits are set to zero. This is especially important for this index field, Any non-zero bits would signify an entirely different entry. Legal values correspond to the subset of address families for which multicast address allocation is supported. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." ::= { smfCfgAddrForwardingEntry 4 } smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrPrefixLength OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressPrefixLength MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The length in bits of the mask which, when combined with smfCfgAddrForwardingAddress, gives the group prefix for this forwarding range. This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." ::= { smfCfgAddrForwardingEntry 5 } smfCfgAddrForwardingStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX RowStatus MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The status of this row, by which new entries may be created, or old entries deleted from this table." ::= { smfCfgAddrForwardingEntry 6 } -- -- SMF Interfaces Configuration Table -- smfCfgInterfaceTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SmfCfgInterfaceEntry Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 25] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMF Interface Table describes the SMF interfaces that are participating in the SMF packet forwarding process. The ifIndex is from the interfaces group defined in the Interfaces Group MIB module (RFC 2863). As such, this table 'sparse augments' the ifTable specifically when SMF is to be configured to operate over this interface. A conceptual row in this table exists if and only if either a manager has explicitly created the row or there is an interface on the managed device that supports and runs SMF. The manager can create a row by setting rowStatus to 'createAndGo' or 'createAndWait'. Row objects having associated DEFVAL clauses are automatically defined by the agent with these values during row creation, unless the manager explicitly defines these object values during the row creation. If the corresponding entry with ifIndex value is deleted from the Interface Table, then the entry in this table is automatically deleted and SMF is disabled on this interface, and all configuration and state information related to this interface is to be removed from memory. If the value of the smfCfgAdminStatus object is changed from 'enabled' to 'disabled', then all rows in this table are to be deleted and all configuration and state information related to this interface is to be removed from memory." REFERENCE "RFC 2863 - The Interfaces Group MIB, McCloghrie, K., and F. Kastenholtz, June 2000." ::= { smfConfigurationGroup 14 } smfCfgInterfaceEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfCfgInterfaceEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 26] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 DESCRIPTION "The SMF interface entry describes one SMF interface as indexed by its ifIndex. The objects in this table are persistent and when written the device SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage. For further information on the storage behavior for these objects, refer to the description for the smfCfgIfRowStatus object." INDEX { smfCfgIfIndex } ::= { smfCfgInterfaceTable 1 } SmfCfgInterfaceEntry ::= SEQUENCE { smfCfgIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero, smfCfgIfName SnmpAdminString, smfCfgIfAdminStatus SmfStatus, smfCfgIfSmfUpTime TimeTicks, smfCfgIfRowStatus RowStatus } smfCfgIfIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InterfaceIndexOrZero MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The ifIndex for this SMF interface. This value MUST correspond to an ifIndex referring to a valid entry in The Interfaces Table. If the manager attempts to create a row for which the ifIndex does not exist on the local device, then the agent SHOULD issue a return value of 'inconsistentValue' and the operation SHOULD fail." REFERENCE "RFC 2863 - The Interfaces Group MIB, McCloghrie, K., and F. Kastenholtz, June 2000." ::= { smfCfgInterfaceEntry 1 } smfCfgIfName OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The textual name of the interface. The value of this object SHOULD be the name of the interface as assigned by the local device. This can be a text-name, such as 'le0' Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 27] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 or a simple port number, such as '1', depending on the interface-naming syntax of the device. If there is no local name or this object is otherwise not applicable, then this object contains a zero-length string." ::= { smfCfgInterfaceEntry 2 } smfCfgIfAdminStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfStatus MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMF interface's administrative status. The value 'enabled' denotes that the interface is running the SMF forwarding process. The value 'disabled' denotes that the interface is currently external to the SMF forwarding process. The default value for this object is 'enabled(1)'. This object SHOULD be persistent and when written the device SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." DEFVAL { enabled } ::= { smfCfgInterfaceEntry 3 } smfCfgIfSmfUpTime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TimeTicks MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The time (in hundredths of a second) since this interface SMF process was last re-initialized. The interface SMF process is re-initialized when the corresponding 'smfCfgIfRowStatus' object transits to the active(1) state." ::= { smfCfgInterfaceEntry 4 } smfCfgIfRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX RowStatus MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object permits management of the table by facilitating actions such as row creation, construction, and destruction. The value of this object has no effect on whether other Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 28] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 objects in this conceptual row can be modified. An entry may not exist in the active(1) state unless all objects in the entry have a defined appropriate value. For objects with DEFVAL clauses, the management station does not need to specify the value of this object in order for the row to transit to the active(1) state; the default value for this object is used. For objects that do not have DEFVAL clauses, then the network manager MUST specify the value of this object prior to this row transitioning to the active(1) state. When this object transitions to active(1), all objects in this row SHOULD be written to non-volatile (stable) storage. Read-create objects in this row MAY be modified. When an object in a row with smfCfgIfRowStatus of active(1) is changed, then the updated value MUST be reflected in SMF and this new object value MUST be written to non-volatile storage. If this object is not equal to active(1), all associated entries in the smfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfTable and the smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfTable MUST be deleted." ::= { smfCfgInterfaceEntry 5 } -- -- smfStateGroup -- -- Contains information describing the current state of the SMF -- process such as the current inclusion in the RS or not. -- smfStateGroup OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIBObjects 3 } smfStateNodeRsStatusIncluded OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TruthValue MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The current status of the SMF node in the context of the MANETs relay set. A value of 'true(1)' indicates that the node is currently part of the MANET Relay Set. A value of 'false(2)' indicates that the node is currently not part of the MANET Relay Set." REFERENCE "See Section 7. 'Relay Set Selection' in Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 29] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfStateGroup 1 } smfStateDpdMemoryOverflow OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "DPD Records" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The number of DPD records that had to be flushed to prevent memory overruns for caching of these records. The number of records to be flushed upon a buffer overflow is an implementation specific decision. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." REFERENCE "See Section 6. 'SMF Duplicate Packet Detection' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfStateGroup 2 } -- -- SMF Neighbor Table -- smfStateNeighborTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SmfStateNeighborEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMF StateNeighborTable describes the current one-hop neighbor nodes, their address and SMF RSSA and the interface on which they can be reached." REFERENCE "See Section 7. 'SMF Neighborhood Discovery' and Section 8.1. 'SMF Relay Algorithm TLV Types' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfStateGroup 3 } Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 30] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 smfStateNeighborEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfStateNeighborEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMF Neighbor Table contains the set of one-hop neighbors, the interface they are reachable on and the SMF RSSA they are currently running." INDEX { smfStateNeighborIpAddrType, smfStateNeighborIpAddr, smfStateNeighborPrefixLen } ::= { smfStateNeighborTable 1 } SmfStateNeighborEntry ::= SEQUENCE { smfStateNeighborIpAddrType InetAddressType, smfStateNeighborIpAddr InetAddress, smfStateNeighborPrefixLen InetAddressPrefixLength, smfStateNeighborRSSA IANAsmfRssaIdTC, smfStateNeighborNextHopInterface InterfaceIndexOrZero } smfStateNeighborIpAddrType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) } MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The one-hop neighbor IP address type. Only the values 'ipv4(1)' and 'ipv6(2)' are supported." ::= { smfStateNeighborEntry 1 } smfStateNeighborIpAddr OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddress (SIZE(4|16)) MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The one-hop neighbor Inet IPv4 or IPv6 address. Only IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are supported." ::= { smfStateNeighborEntry 2 } smfStateNeighborPrefixLen OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressPrefixLength Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 31] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 UNITS "bits" MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The prefix length. This is a decimal value that indicates the number of contiguous, higher-order bits of the address that make up the network portion of the address." ::= { smfStateNeighborEntry 3 } smfStateNeighborRSSA OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IANAsmfRssaIdTC MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The current RSSA running on the neighbor." ::= { smfStateNeighborEntry 4 } smfStateNeighborNextHopInterface OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InterfaceIndexOrZero MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The interface ifIndex over which the neighbor is reachable in one-hop." ::= { smfStateNeighborEntry 6 } -- -- SMF Performance Group -- -- Contains objects which help to characterize the -- performance of the SMF RSSA process, such as statistics -- counters. There are two types of SMF RSSA statistics: -- global counters and per interface counters. -- smfPerformanceGroup OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIBObjects 4 } smfPerfGobalGroup OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfPerformanceGroup 1 } -- -- IPv4 packet counters -- smfPerfIpv4MultiPktsRecvTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 32] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of multicast IPv4 packets received by the device and delivered to the SMF process. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 1 } smfPerfIpv4MultiPktsForwardedTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of multicast IPv4 packets forwarded by the device. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 2 } smfPerfIpv4DuplMultiPktsDetectedTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of duplicate multicast IPv4 packets detected by the device. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 33] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." REFERENCE "See Section 6.2. 'IPv4 Duplicate Packet Detection' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 3 } smfPerfIpv4DroppedMultiPktsTTLExceededTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of dropped multicast IPv4 packets by the device due to TTL exceeded. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." REFERENCE "See Section 5. 'SMF Packet Processing and Forwarding' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 4 } smfPerfIpv4TTLLargerThanPreviousTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of IPv4 packets recieved which have a TTL larger than that of a previously received identical packet. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." REFERENCE "See Section 5. 'SMF Packet Processing and Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 34] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 Forwarding' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 5 } -- -- IPv6 packet counters -- smfPerfIpv6MultiPktsRecvTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of multicast IPv6 packets received by the device and delivered to the SMF process. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 6 } smfPerfIpv6MultiPktsForwardedTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of multicast IPv6 packets forwarded by the device. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 7 } smfPerfIpv6DuplMultiPktsDetectedTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 35] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of duplicate multicast IPv6 packets detected by the device. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." REFERENCE "See Section 6.1. 'IPv6 Duplicate Packet Detection' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 8 } smfPerfIpv6DroppedMultiPktsTTLExceededTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of dropped multicast IPv6 packets by the device due to TTL exceeded. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." REFERENCE "See Section 5. 'SMF Packet Processing and Forwarding' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 9 } smfPerfIpv6TTLLargerThanPreviousTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of IPv6 packets Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 36] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 recieved which have a TTL larger than that of a previously recived identical packet. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." REFERENCE "See Section 5. 'SMF Packet Processing and Forwarding' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 10 } smfPerfIpv6HAVAssistsReqdTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of IPv6 packets received which required the HAV assist for DPD. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." REFERENCE "See Section 6.1.1. 'IPv6 SMF_DPD Option Header' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 11 } smfPerfIpv6DpdHeaderInsertionsTotal OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of IPv6 packets recieved which the device inserted the DPD header option. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 37] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 disabled and later enabled. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgSmfSysUpTime object also be monitored." REFERENCE "See Section 6.1.2. 'IPv6 Identification-Based DPD' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." ::= { smfPerfGobalGroup 12 } -- -- Per SMF Interface Performance Table -- smfPerfInterfaceGroup OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfPerformanceGroup 2 } smfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SmfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMF Interface Performance Table describes the SMF counters per interface." ::= { smfPerfInterfaceGroup 1 } smfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMF Interface Performance entry describes the statistics for a particular node interface." INDEX { smfCfgIfIndex } ::= { smfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfTable 1 } SmfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfEntry ::= SEQUENCE { smfPerfIpv4MultiPktsRecvPerIf Counter32, smfPerfIpv4MultiPktsForwardedPerIf Counter32, smfPerfIpv4DuplMultiPktsDetectedPerIf Counter32, smfPerfIpv4DroppedMultiPktsTTLExceededPerIf Counter32, smfPerfIpv4TTLLargerThanPreviousPerIf Counter32 } smfPerfIpv4MultiPktsRecvPerIf OBJECT-TYPE Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 38] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the number of multicast IP packets received by the SMF process on this device on this interface. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfEntry 1 } smfPerfIpv4MultiPktsForwardedPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the number of multicast IP packets forwarded by the SMF process on this device on this interface. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfEntry 2 } smfPerfIpv4DuplMultiPktsDetectedPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the number of duplicate multicast IP packets detected by the SMF process on this device on this interface. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 39] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfEntry 3 } smfPerfIpv4DroppedMultiPktsTTLExceededPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of dropped multicast IPv4 packets by the SMF process on this device on this interface due to TTL exceeded. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfEntry 4 } smfPerfIpv4TTLLargerThanPreviousPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of IPv4 packets received by the SMF process on this device on this interface which have a TTL larger than that of a previously received identical packet. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv4InterfacePerfEntry 5 } Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 40] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SmfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMF Interface Performance Table describes the SMF counters per interface." ::= { smfPerfInterfaceGroup 2 } smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SmfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMF Interface Performance entry describes the counters for a particular node interface." INDEX { smfCfgIfIndex } ::= { smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfTable 1 } SmfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry ::= SEQUENCE { smfPerfIpv6MultiPktsRecvPerIf Counter32, smfPerfIpv6MultiPktsForwardedPerIf Counter32, smfPerfIpv6DuplMultiPktsDetectedPerIf Counter32, smfPerfIpv6DroppedMultiPktsTTLExceededPerIf Counter32, smfPerfIpv6TTLLargerThanPreviousPerIf Counter32, smfPerfIpv6HAVAssistsReqdPerIf Counter32, smfPerfIpv6DpdHeaderInsertionsPerIf Counter32 } smfPerfIpv6MultiPktsRecvPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the number of multicast IP packets received by the SMF process on this device on this interface. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 41] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry 1 } smfPerfIpv6MultiPktsForwardedPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the number of multicast IP packets forwarded by the SMF process on this device on this interface. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry 2 } smfPerfIpv6DuplMultiPktsDetectedPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the number of duplicate multicast IP packets detected by the SMF process on this device on this interface. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry 3 } smfPerfIpv6DroppedMultiPktsTTLExceededPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 42] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the number of dropped multicast IP packets by the SMF process on this device on this interface due to TTL exceeded. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry 4 } smfPerfIpv6TTLLargerThanPreviousPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of IPv6 packets received which have a TTL larger than that of a previously received identical packet by the SMF process on this device on this interface. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry 5 } smfPerfIpv6HAVAssistsReqdPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of IPv6 packets received by the SMF process on this device on this interface which required the HAV assist for DPD. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 43] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry 6 } smfPerfIpv6DpdHeaderInsertionsPerIf OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 UNITS "Packets" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A counter of the total number of IPv6 packets received by the SMF process on this device on this interface which the device inserted the DPD header option. There is the potential for a counter discontinuity in this object if the system SMF process had been disabled and later enabled on this interface. In order to check for the occurrence of such a discontinuity when monitoring this counter object, it is recommended that the smfCfgIfSmfUpTime object also be monitored." ::= { smfPerfIpv6InterfacePerfEntry 7 } -- -- Notifications -- smfMIBNotifObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIBNotifications 0 } smfMIBNotifControl OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIBNotifications 1 } -- smfMIBNotifObjects smfNotifAdminStatusChange NOTIFICATION-TYPE OBJECTS { smfCfgRouterIDAddrType, -- The originator of -- the notification. smfCfgRouterID, -- The originator of -- the notification. smfCfgAdminStatus -- The new status of the -- SMF process. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 44] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "smfCfgAdminStatusChange is a notification sent when a the 'smfCfgAdminStatus' object changes." ::= { smfMIBNotifObjects 1 } smfNotifConfiguredOpModeChange NOTIFICATION-TYPE OBJECTS { smfCfgRouterIDAddrType, -- The originator of -- the notification. smfCfgRouterID, -- The originator of -- the notification. smfCfgOperationalMode -- The new Operations -- Mode of the SMF -- process. } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "smfNotifConfiguredOpModeChange is a notification sent when the 'smfCfgOperationalMode' object changes." ::= { smfMIBNotifObjects 2 } smfNotifIfAdminStatusChange NOTIFICATION-TYPE OBJECTS { smfCfgRouterIDAddrType, -- The originator of -- the notification. smfCfgRouterID, -- The originator of -- the notification. smfCfgIfName, -- The interface whose -- status has changed. smfCfgIfAdminStatus -- The new status of the -- SMF interface. } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "smfCfgIfAdminStatusChange is a notification sent when a the 'smfCfgIfAdminStatus' object changes." ::= { smfMIBNotifObjects 3 } smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowEvent NOTIFICATION-TYPE OBJECTS { smfCfgRouterIDAddrType, -- The originator of -- the notification. smfCfgRouterID, -- The originator of -- the notification. smfStateDpdMemoryOverflow -- The counter of -- the overflows. } STATUS current Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 45] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 DESCRIPTION "smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowEvents is sent when the number of memory overflow events exceeds the the 'smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowThreshold' within the previous number of seconds defined by the 'smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowWindow'." ::= { smfMIBNotifObjects 4 } -- smfMIBNotifControl smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowThreshold OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..255) UNITS "Events" MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A threshold value for the `smfNotifDpdmemoryOverflowEvents' object. If the number of occurences exceeds this threshold within the previous number of seconds 'smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowWindow', then the `smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowEvent' notification is sent. The default value for this object is '1'." DEFVAL { 1 } ::= { smfMIBNotifControl 1 } smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowWindow OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TimeTicks MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A time window value for the `smfNotifDpdmemoryOverflowEvents' object. If the number of occurences exceeds the `smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowThreshold' within the previous number of seconds 'smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowWindow', then the `smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowEvent' notification is sent. The default value for this object is '1'." DEFVAL { 1 } Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 46] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 ::= { smfMIBNotifControl 2 } -- -- Compliance Statements -- smfCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIBConformance 1 } smfMIBGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smfMIBConformance 2 } smfBasicCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The basic implementation requirements for managed network entities that implement the SMF RSSA process." MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { smfCapabObjectsGroup, smfConfigObjectsGroup } ::= { smfCompliances 1 } smfFullCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The full implementation requirements for managed network entities that implement the SMF RSSA process." MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { smfCapabObjectsGroup, smfConfigObjectsGroup, smfStateObjectsGroup, smfPerfObjectsGroup, smfNotifObjectsGroup, smfNotificationsGroup } ::= { smfCompliances 2 } -- -- Units of Conformance -- smfCapabObjectsGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { smfCapabilitiesOpModeID, smfCapabilitiesRssaID } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Set of SMF configuration objects implemented in this module." Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 47] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 ::= { smfMIBGroups 1 } smfConfigObjectsGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { smfCfgAdminStatus, smfCfgSmfSysUpTime, smfCfgRouterIDAddrType, smfCfgRouterID, smfCfgOperationalMode, smfCfgRssaMember, smfCfgIpv4Dpd, smfCfgIpv6Dpd, smfCfgMaxPktLifetime, smfCfgDpdEntryMaxLifetime, smfCfgNhdpRssaMesgTLVIncluded, smfCfgNhdpRssaAddrBlockTLVIncluded, smfCfgAddrForwardingGroupName, smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrType, smfCfgAddrForwardingAddress, smfCfgAddrForwardingAddrPrefixLength, smfCfgAddrForwardingStatus, smfCfgIfName, smfCfgIfAdminStatus, smfCfgIfSmfUpTime, smfCfgIfRowStatus } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Set of SMF configuration objects implemented in this module." ::= { smfMIBGroups 2 } smfStateObjectsGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { smfStateNodeRsStatusIncluded, smfStateDpdMemoryOverflow, smfStateNeighborRSSA, smfStateNeighborNextHopInterface } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Set of SMF state objects implemented in this module." ::= { smfMIBGroups 3 } Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 48] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 smfPerfObjectsGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { smfPerfIpv4MultiPktsRecvTotal, smfPerfIpv4MultiPktsForwardedTotal, smfPerfIpv4DuplMultiPktsDetectedTotal, smfPerfIpv4DroppedMultiPktsTTLExceededTotal, smfPerfIpv4TTLLargerThanPreviousTotal, smfPerfIpv6MultiPktsRecvTotal, smfPerfIpv6MultiPktsForwardedTotal, smfPerfIpv6DuplMultiPktsDetectedTotal, smfPerfIpv6DroppedMultiPktsTTLExceededTotal, smfPerfIpv6TTLLargerThanPreviousTotal, smfPerfIpv6HAVAssistsReqdTotal, smfPerfIpv6DpdHeaderInsertionsTotal, smfPerfIpv4MultiPktsRecvPerIf, smfPerfIpv4MultiPktsForwardedPerIf, smfPerfIpv4DuplMultiPktsDetectedPerIf, smfPerfIpv4DroppedMultiPktsTTLExceededPerIf, smfPerfIpv4TTLLargerThanPreviousPerIf, smfPerfIpv6MultiPktsRecvPerIf, smfPerfIpv6MultiPktsForwardedPerIf, smfPerfIpv6DuplMultiPktsDetectedPerIf, smfPerfIpv6DroppedMultiPktsTTLExceededPerIf, smfPerfIpv6TTLLargerThanPreviousPerIf, smfPerfIpv6HAVAssistsReqdPerIf, smfPerfIpv6DpdHeaderInsertionsPerIf } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Set of SMF performance objects implemented in this module by total and per interface." ::= { smfMIBGroups 4 } smfNotifObjectsGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowThreshold, smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowWindow } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Set of SMF notification control objects implemented in this module." ::= { smfMIBGroups 5 } smfNotificationsGroup NOTIFICATION-GROUP Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 49] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 NOTIFICATIONS { smfNotifAdminStatusChange, smfNotifConfiguredOpModeChange, smfNotifIfAdminStatusChange, smfNotifDpdMemoryOverflowEvent } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Set of SMF notifications implemented in this module." ::= { smfMIBGroups 6 } END 8. Security Considerations This section discusses security implications of the choices made in this SMF-MIB module. There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB module with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. Such objects may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. The support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations. These are the tables and objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability: o 'smfCfgAdminStatus' - this writable configuration object controls the operational status of the SMF process. If this setting is configured inconsistently across the MANET multicast domain, then delivery of multicast data may be inconsistent across the domain; some nodes may not receive multicast data intended for them. o 'smfCfgRouterIDAddrType' and 'smfCfgRouterID' - these writable configuration objects define the ID of the SMF process. These objects should be configured with a routable address defined on the local SMF device. The smfCfgRouterID is a logical identification that MUST be configured as unique across inter- operating SMF neighborhoods and it is RECOMMENDED to be chosen as the numerically largest address contained in a node's 'Neighbor Address List' as defined in NHDP. A smfCfgRouterID MUST be unique within the scope of the operating MANET network regardless of the method used for selecting it. If these objects are mis-configured or configured in-consistently across the MANET, then the ability of various RSSA algorithms, e.g., ECDS, may be compromised. This would potentially result in some routers within the MANET not Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 50] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 receiving multicast packets destine to them. Hence, intentionally mis-configuring these objects could pose a form of Denial-of- Service (DOS) attack against the MANET. o 'smfCfgOpMode' - this writable configuration objects define the operational mode of the SMF process. The operational mode defines how the SMF process receives its data to form its local estimate of the CDS. It is recommended that the value for this object be set consistently across the MANET to ensure proper operation of the multicast packet forwarding. If the value for this object is set inconsistently across the MANET, the result may be that multicast packet delivery will be compromised within the MANET. Hence, intentionally mis-configuring this object could pose a form DOS attack against the MANET. o 'smfCfgRssa' - this writable configuration object sets the specific Reduced Set Selection Algorithm (RSSA) for the SMF process. If this object is set inconsistently across the MANET domain, multicast delivery of data will likely fail. Hence, intentionally mis-configuring this object could pose a form DOS attack against the MANET. o 'smfCfgRssaMember' - this writable configuration object sets the 'interest' of the local SMF node in participating in the CDS. Setting this object to 'never(3)' on a highly highly connected device could lead to frequent island formation. Setting this object to 'always(2)' could support data ex-filtration from the MANET domain. o 'smfCfgIpv4Dpd' - this writable configuration object sets the duplicate packet detection method, i.e., H-DPD or I-DPD, for forwarding of IPv4 multicast packets. Forwarders may operate with mixed H-DPD and I-DPD modes as long as they consistently perform the appropriate DPD routines outlined [RFC6621]. However, it is RECOMMENDED that a deployment be configured with a common mode for operational consistency. o 'smfCfgIpv6Dpd' - this writable configuration object sets the duplicate packet detection method for forwarding of IPv6 multicast packets. Since IPv6 SMF does specifies an option header, the interoperability constraints are not as loose as in the IPv4 version, and forwarders SHOULD not operate with mixed H-DPD and I-DPD modes. Hence the value for this object SHOULD be consistently set within the forwarders comprising the MANET, else inconsistent forwarding may result unnecessary multicast packet dropping. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 51] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 o 'smfCfgMaxPktLifetime' - this writable configuration object sets the estimate of the network packet traversal time. If set too small, this could lead to poor multicast data delivery ratios throughout the MANET domain. This could serve as a form of DOS attack if this object value is set too small. o 'smfCfgDpdEntryMaxLifetime' - this writable configuration object sets the maximum lifetime (in seconds) for the cached DPD records for the combined IPv4 and IPv6 methods. If the memory is running low prior to the MaxLifetimes being exceeded, the local SMF devices should purge the oldest records first. If this object value is set too small, then the effectiveness of the SMF DPD algorithms may become greatly diminished causing a higher than necessary packet load on the MANET. o 'smfCfgNhdpRssaMesgTLVIncluded' - this writable configuration object indicates whether the associated NHDP messages include the the RSSA Message TLV, or not. It is highly RECOMMENDED that this object be set to 'true(1)' when the SMF operation mode is set to independent as this information will inform the local forwarder of the RSSA algorithm implemented in neighboring forwarders and is used to ensure consistent forwarding across the MANET. While it is possible that SMF neighbors MAY be configured differently with respect to the RSSA algorithm and still operate cooperatively, but these cases will vary dependent upon the algorithm types designated and this situation SHOULD be avoided. o 'smfCfgNhdpRssaAddrBlockTLVIncluded' - this writable configuration object indicates whether the associated NHDP messages include the the RSSA Address Block TLV, or not. The smfNhdpRssaAddrBlockTLVIncluded is optional in all cases as it depends on the existence of an address block which may not be present. If this SMF device is configured with NHDP, then this object should be set to 'true(1)' as this TLV enables CDS relay algorithm operation and configuration to be shared among 2-hop neighborhoods. Some relay algorithms require 2-hop neighbor configuration in order to correctly select relay sets. o 'smfCfgAddrForwardingTable' - the writable configuration objects in this table indicate which multicast IP addresses are to be forwarded by this SMF node. Misconfiguration of rows within this table can limit the ability of this SMF device to properly forward multicast data. o 'smfCfgInterfaceTable' - the writable configuration objects in this table indicate which SMF node interfaces are participating in the SMF packet forwarding process. Misconfiguration of rows within this table can limit the ability of this SMF device to Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 52] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 properly forward multicast data. Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects with a MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over the network via SNMP. These are the tables and objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability: o 'smfNodeRsStatusIncluded' - this readable state object indicates that this SMF node is part of the CDS, or not. Being part of the CDS makes this node a distinguished device. It could be exploited for data ex-filtration, or denial of service attacks. o 'smfStateNeighborTable' - the readable state objects in this table indicate current neighbor nodes to this SMF node. Exposing this information to an attacker could allow the attacker easier access to the larger MANET domain. The remainder of the objects in the SMF-MIB module are performance counter objects. While these give an indication of the activity of the SMF process on this node, it is not expected that exposing these values pose a security risk to the MANET network. SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in this MIB module. Implementations MUST provide the security features described by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410] ), including full support for authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM) [RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826]. Implementations MAY also provide support for the Transport Security Model (TSM) [RFC5591] in combination with a secure transport such as SSH [RFC5592] or TLS/DTLS [RFC6353]. Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT RECOMMENDED. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 53] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 9. Applicability Statement This document describes objects for configuring parameters of the Simplified Multicast Forwarding [RFC6621] process on a Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET) router. This MIB module, denoted SMF-MIB, also reports state and performance information and notifications. This section provides some examples of how this MIB module can be used in MANET network deployments. A fuller discussion of MANET network management use cases and challenges will be provided elsewhere. SMF is designed to allow MANET routers to forward IPv4 and IPv6 packets over the MANET and cover the MANET nodes through the automatic discovery of efficient estimates of the Minimum Connected Dominating Set (MCDS) of nodes within the MANET. The MCDS are estimated using the Relay Set Selection Algorithms (RSSAs) discussed within this document. In the following, three scenarios are listed where this MIB module is useful, i.e., o For a Parking Lot Initial Configuration Situation - it is common for the vehicles comprising the MANET being forward deployed at a remote location, e.g., the site of a natural disaster, to be off- loaded in a parking lot where an initial configuration of the networking devices is performed. The configuration is loaded into the devices from a fixed location Network Operation Center (NOC) at the parking lot and the vehicles are stationary at the parking lot while the configuration changes are made. Standards-based methods for configuration management from the co-located NOC are necessary for this deployment option. The set of interesting configuration objects for the SMF process are listed within this MIB module. o For Mobile vehicles with Low Bandwidth Satellite Link to a Fixed NOC - Here the vehicles carrying the MANET routers carry multiple wireless interfaces, one of which is a relatively low-bandwidth on-the-move satellite connection which interconnects a fix NOC to the nodes of the MANET. Standards-based methods for monitoring and fault management from the fixed NOC are necessary for this deployment option. o For Fixed NOC and Mobile Local Manager in Larger Vehicles - for larger vehicles, a hierarchical network management arrangement is useful. Centralized network management is performed from a fixed NOC while local management is performed locally from within the vehicles. Standards-based methods for configuration, monitoring and fault management are necessary for this deployment option. Here we provide an example of the simplest of configurations to establish an operational multicast forwarding capability in a MANET. Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 54] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 This discussion only identifies the configuration necessary through the SMF-MIB module and assumes that other configuration has occurred. Assume that the MANET is to support only IPv4 addressing and that the MANET nodes are to be configured in the context of the Parking Lot Initialization case above. Then the SMF-MIB module defines ten configuration OIDs and two configuration tables, i.e., the smfCfgAddrForwardingTable and the smfCfgInterfaceTable. Of the ten OIDs defined, all but one, i.e., the smfCfgRouterID, have DEFVAL clauses which allow for a functional configuration of the SMF process within the MANET. The smfCfgRouterIDType defaults to 'ipv4' so the smfCfgRouterID can be set as, e.g.,: snmpset [options] .0 a 192.168.1.100 If the smfCfgAddrForwardingTable is left empty, then the SMF local forwarder will forward all multicast addresses. So this table does not require configuration if you want to have the MANET forward all multicast addresses. All that remains is to configure at least one row in the smfCfgInterfaceTable. Assume that the node has a wireless interface with an ='wlan0' and an ='1'. All of the objects in the rows of the smfCfgInterfaceTable have a DEFVAL clause, hence only the RowStatus object needs to be set. So the SMF process will be activated on the 'wlan0' interface by the following network manager snmpset command: snmpset [options] .1 i active(1) At this point, the configured forwarder will begin a Classical Flooding algorithm to forward all multicast addresses IPv4 packets it receives. If the To provide a more efficient multicast forwarding within the MANET, the network manager could walk the smfCapabilitiesTable to identify other SMF operational modes, e.g.,: snmpwalk -c public -v 2c router SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesIndex.1 = INTEGER: 1 SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesIndex.2 = INTEGER: 2 SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesOpModeID.1 = INTEGER: cfOnly(1) SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesOpModeiD.2 = INTEGER: independent(2) SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesRssaID.1 = INTEGER: cF(1) Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 55] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesRssaID.2 = INTEGER: eCDS(3) In this example, the forwarding device also supports the Extended Connected Dominating Set (eCDS) RSSA with the forwarder in the 'independent(2)' operational mode. If the network manager were to then issue an snmpset, e.g.,: snmpset [options] .0 i 2 then the local forwarder would switch if forwarding behavior from Classical Flooding to the more efficient eCDS flooding. 10. IANA Considerations The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned OBJECT IDENTIFIER value recorded in the SMI Numbers registry: Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value ---------- ----------------------- SMF-MIB { experimental XXXX } IANA EDITOR NOTE: please assign XXXX, and remove this note. 11. Contributors This MIB document uses the template authored by D. Harrington which is based on contributions from the MIB Doctors, especially Juergen Schoenwaelder, Dave Perkins, C.M.Heard and Randy Presuhn. 12. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable comments from Sean Harnedy in the early phases of the development of this MIB module. The authors would like to thank James Nguyen for his careful review and comments on this MIB module and his work on the definitions of the follow on MIB modules to configure specific RSSA algorithms related to SMF. Further, the authors would like to acknowledge to work of James Nguyen, Brian Little, Ryan Morgan and Justin Dean on their software development of the SMF-MIB. 13. References 13.1. Normative References [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 56] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411, December 2002. [RFC3418] Presuhn, R., "Management Information Base (MIB) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3418, December 2002. [RFC4001] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", RFC 4001, February 2005. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. [RFC6621] Macker, J., "Simplified Multicast Forwarding", RFC 6621, May 2012. 13.2. Informative References [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet- Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002. [RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002. [RFC3826] Blumenthal, U., Maino, F., and K. McCloghrie, "The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Cipher Algorithm in the SNMP User-based Security Model", RFC 3826, June 2004. [RFC5591] Harrington, D. and W. Hardaker, "Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 5591, June 2009. [RFC5592] Harrington, D., Salowey, J., and W. Hardaker, "Secure Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 57] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 Shell Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 5592, June 2009. [RFC6353] Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 6353, July 2011. Appendix A. Appendix A: This appendix contains the IANAsmfOpModeID-MIB module defined by this specification below. The RFC editor should remove this specification of the IANAsmfOpModeID-MIB upon publication of the SMF-MIB. Further, IANA should take over the IANAsmfOpModeID-MIB and to keep it synchronized with the registry identified below within the IANAsmfOpModeIdTC TEXTUAL-CONVENTION. IANAsmfOpModeID-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; ianasmfOpModeID MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "201401190000Z" -- January 19, 2014 ORGANIZATION "IANA" CONTACT-INFO "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Postal: ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 823 9358 E-Mail: iana@iana.org" DESCRIPTION "This MIB module defines the IANAsmfOpModeIdTC Textual Convention, and thus the enumerated values of the smfCapabilitiesOpModeID object defined in the SMF-MIB." REVISION "201401190000Z" -- January 19, 2014 DESCRIPTION "Initial version of this MIB as published in RFC KKKK." ::= { mib-2 kkkk } IANAsmfOpModeIdTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 58] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 DESCRIPTION "An index that identifies through reference to a specific SMF operations mode. There are basically three styles of SMF operation with reduced relay sets: Independent operation 'independent(1)' - SMF performs its own relay set selection using information from an associated MANET NHDP process. CDS-aware unicast routing operation 'routing(2)'- a coexistent unicast routing protocol provides dynamic relay set state based upon its own control plane CDS or neighborhood discovery information. Cross-layer operation 'crossLayer(3)' - SMF operates using neighborhood status and triggers from a cross-layer information base for dynamic relay set selection and maintenance. IANA MUST update this textual convention accordingly. The definition of this textual convention with the addition of newly assigned values is published periodically by the IANA, in either the Assigned Numbers RFC, or some derivative of it specific to Internet Network Management number assignments. (The latest arrangements can be obtained by contacting the IANA.) Requests for new values should be made to IANA via email (iana@iana.org)." REFERENCE "See Section 7.2. 'Reduced Relay Set Forwarding', and the Appendices A, B and C in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." SYNTAX INTEGER { independent (1), routing (2), crossLayer (3) -- future (4-255) } END Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 59] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 Appendix B. Appendix B: This appendix contains the IANAsmfRssaID-MIB module defined by this specification below. The RFC editor should remove this specification of the IANAsmfRssaID-MIB upon publication of the SMF-MIB. Further, IANA should take over the IANAsmfRssaID-MIB and to keep it synchronized with the registry identified below within the IANAsmfRssaIdTC TEXTUAL-CONVENTION. IANAsmfRssaID-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; ianasmfRssaID MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "201401190000Z" -- January 19, 2014 ORGANIZATION "IANA" CONTACT-INFO "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Postal: ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 823 9358 E-Mail: iana@iana.org" DESCRIPTION "This MIB module defines the IANAsmfRssaIdTC Textual Convention, and thus the enumerated values of the smfCapabilitiesRssaID object defined in the SMF-MIB." REVISION "201401190000Z" -- January 19, 2014 DESCRIPTION "Initial version of this MIB as published in RFC LLLL." ::= { mib-2 llll } IANAsmfRssaIdTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An index that identifies through reference to a specific RSSA algorithms. Several are currently defined in the Appendix A, B and C of RFC 6621. Examples of RSSA algorithms already identified within Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 60] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 this TC are: Classical Flooding (cF(1)) - is the standard flooding algorithm where each node in the next retransmits the information on each of its interfaces. Source-Based Multipint Relay (sMPR(2)) - this algorithm is used by Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) and OLSR version 2 (OLSRv2) protocols for the relay of link state updates and other control information [RFC3626]. Since each router picks its neighboring relays independently, sMPR forwarders depend upon previous hop information (e.g., source MAC address) to operate correctly. Extended Connected Dominating Set (eCDS(3)) - defined in [RFC5614] this algorithm forms a single CDS mesh for the SMF operating region. Its packet-forwarding rules are not dependent upon previous hop knowledge in contrast to sMPR. Multipoint Relay Connected Dominating Set (mprCDS(4)) - This algorithm is an extension to the basic sMPR election algorithm that results in a shared (non-source-specific) SMF CDS. Thus, its forwarding rules are not dependent upon previous hop information, similar to eCDS. IANA MUST update this textual convention accordingly. The definition of this textual convention with the addition of newly assigned values is published periodically by the IANA, in either the Assigned Numbers RFC, or some derivative of it specific to Internet Network Management number assignments. (The latest arrangements can be obtained by contacting the IANA.) Requests for new values should be made to IANA via email (iana@iana.org)." REFERENCE "See, e.g., Section 8.1.1. 'SMF Message TLV Type', Appendix A. 'Essential Connecting Dominating Set (E-CDS) Algorithm', Appendix B. 'Source-Based Multipoint Relay (S-MPR) Algorithm', and Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 61] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 Appendix C. 'Multipoint Relay Connected Dominating Set (MPR-CDS) Algorithm' in RFC 6621 - Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), Macker, J., May 2012." SYNTAX INTEGER { cF(1), sMPR(2), eCDS(3), mprCDS(4) -- future(5-127) -- noStdAction(128-239) -- experimental(240-255) } END Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 62] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 Appendix C. *************************************************************** * Note to the RFC Editor (to be removed prior to publication) * * * * * * 1) The reference to RFCXXXX throughout this document point * * to the current draft-ietf-manet-smf-xx.txt. This needs * * to be replaced with the XXXX RFC number for the SMF * * publication. * * * * 2) Appendix A contains the IANAsmfOpModeID-MIB * * module which is defined by this specification in the * * appendix. The RFC editor should remove this specification * * of the IANAsmfOpModeID-MIB upon publication of * * the SMF-MIB. Further, IANA should take over the * * IANAsmfOpModeID-MIB and keep it synchronized * * with the registry identified within the contained * * IANAsmfOpModeIdTC TEXTUAL-CONVENTION. * * * * 3) Appendix B contains the IANAsmfRssaID-MIB * * module which is defined by this specification in the * * appendix. The RFC editor should remove this specification * * of the IANAsmfRssaID-MIB upon publication of * * the SMF-MIB. Further, IANA should take over the * * IANAsmfRssaID-MIB and keep it synchronized * * with the registry identified within the contained * * IANAsmfRssaID TEXTUAL-CONVENTION. * * * *************************************************************** Authors' Addresses Robert G. Cole US Army CERDEC 6010 Frankford Road Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005 USA Phone: +1 443 395 8744 EMail: robert.g.cole@us.army.mil Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 63] Internet-Draft The SMF-MIB January 2014 Joseph Macker Naval Research Laboratory Washington, D.C. 20375 USA EMail: macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil Brian Adamson Naval Research Laboratory Washington, D.C. 20375 USA EMail: adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil Cole, et al. Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 64] --------------020305010207010509030708-- From christopher.dearlove@gmail.com Mon Jan 20 11:02:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013AB1A024D for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:02:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.228 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9n_AXrMgQzXw for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:02:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ea0-x22c.google.com (mail-ea0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE6E1A0227 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:02:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ea0-f172.google.com with SMTP id g15so2755928eak.3 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:02:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=6DjitIkXZG7y1V1C8C2RDkKtcTPXN+uBTqRExTViVOE=; b=eXcclsM7o6MY7q8rMJFUareqTjCUfICvgbB5I83T0uJic0Etjeh3TX8g28iuk8qjcI DpaqLDOWWI2MjlXd8aDVY22xVfJ4o0H6/kgvn6A6gMvFLmpqNc/Wg8GGTSvJw2MttkyK gAaCTtD1HKcR7IQOy0f7G280BZkJ8jmmtcnCqUm/g3v1fEqOs56yebUOX9HVhXedtqSo vN7rhWtmj5x7CXmSZK0N2B/AWAkRsHk4O0eH+VFmQCB+4NMfs/M2vRnzprL3Idc60WYQ asq9OFRIZX+UWhb77TJNcZHj2caeNnkEkY16XhE9kM1u2Kt2EwCy0IZr85eVxR1QqE7R 7yrw== X-Received: by 10.14.205.201 with SMTP id j49mr3597133eeo.85.1390244559015; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:02:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.212.145.88] (dab-hlw1-h-1-8.dab.02.net. [82.132.234.244]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k41sm6124573eey.0.2014.01.20.11.02.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:02:38 -0800 (PST) References: <52DD5B1A.5020006@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7DEF9076-E3B4-4D60-B63B-00A357FB8AD2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a) From: Christopher Dearlove Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:02:32 +0000 To: Henning Rogge Cc: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" , "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] Questions regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19 X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:02:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail-7DEF9076-E3B4-4D60-B63B-00A357FB8AD2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think I speak for the authors that we have no intention of doing this. It m= ay be editorial, but it's been accepted up to now, through the whole process= , and the likelihood of making an error would massively outweigh any possibl= e advantage, even if we agreed on what. --=20 Christopher Dearlove christopher.dearlove@gmail.com (iPhone) chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk (home) > On 20 Jan 2014, at 18:18, Henning Rogge wrote: >=20 >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: >> 2. Good catch, and nicely timely as we are doing edits with the RFC Edi= tor right now and can add this to the list. Note that (see point above) this= gets rid of the Neighbor Tuple here. >=20 > I wonder if we should rename the "x_mpr_selector" variables into something= like "x_flooding/routing_mpr_selector" to make sure they cannot be mixed up= when implementing OLSRv2. It sounds like something that could be done in an= editor change because it will change nothing to the protocol but make the d= escription more foolproof. >=20 > Its not really that important, but it might be a good idea. >=20 > Henning Rogge > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --Apple-Mail-7DEF9076-E3B4-4D60-B63B-00A357FB8AD2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think I speak for the authors that w= e have no intention of doing this. It may be editorial, but it's been accept= ed up to now, through the whole process, and the likelihood of making an err= or would massively outweigh any possible advantage, even if we agreed on wha= t.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove

On 20 Jan 2014, at 18:18, Henning Rogge &= lt;hrogge@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Dearlove,= Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> w= rote:
2.   Good catch, and nicely timely as we are doing edits= with the RFC Editor right now and can add this to the list. Note that (see p= oint above) this gets rid of the Neighbor Tuple here.

I wonder if we should rename the "x_mpr_sel= ector" variables into something like "x_flooding/routing_mpr_selector" to ma= ke sure they cannot be mixed up when implementing OLSRv2. It sounds like som= ething that could be done in an editor change because it will change nothing= to the protocol but make the description more foolproof.

Its not really that important, but it might be a good id= ea.

Henning Rogge
____________________= ___________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mai= lman/listinfo/manet
= --Apple-Mail-7DEF9076-E3B4-4D60-B63B-00A357FB8AD2-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Jan 21 04:32:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239AC1A00E9; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:32:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DJ5hmdOPlNpw; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:32:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B0A1A00C9; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:32:20 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20140121123220.22080.99260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:32:20 -0800 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Last Call: (Routing MPR Optimization for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:32:22 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Routing MPR Optimization for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification updates the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) with an optimization to improve the selection of routing MPRs. The optimization retains full interoperability between implementations of OLSRv2 with and without this optimization. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From adrian@olddog.co.uk Tue Jan 21 09:32:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB5F1A01B4; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:32:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X9S2-qAToyY0; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:32:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED4581A011D; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0LHWD5f012989; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:32:13 GMT Received: from 950129200 (14.21.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.21.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0LHWBCd012983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:32:12 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <20140121123220.22080.99260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140121123220.22080.99260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:32:13 -0000 Message-ID: <0b2201cf16ce$b9f1a850$2dd4f8f0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHG3hSrZrEvJ4Ju2PHbphkRO7whdpqf3/UA Content-Language: en-gb Cc: manet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] Last Call: (Routing MPR Optimization for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:32:19 -0000 A few minor last call comments coming from my AD review. The authors have already discussed these and know what to fix at the end of last call. Adrian === I think MPR could usefully be expanded in the document title, in the Abstract, and on first use in the body. Then you won't need to expand it in Section 3. --- It seems odd that Section 4 has a bullet numbered "1." but no other numbered bullets. --- I think Section 4 uses the notation of 18.2 of [OLSRv2] not 18.3. At least, that is where d1() etc. are defined for revision -19 of that document. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jan 23 08:31:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5E51A0016; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:31:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tCxtR-0hegsT; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:31:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944BF1A0051; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:30:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140123163057.1629.56374.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:30:57 -0800 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension-01.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:31:03 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group of t= he IETF. Title : Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (= OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs Authors : Christopher Dearlove Thomas Heide Clausen Filename : draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension-01.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2014-01-23 Abstract: This specification describes extensions to definitions of TLVs used by the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and the MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), to increase their abilities to accommodate protocol extensions. This document updates OLSRv2 and RFC6130. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extensi= on-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Jan 24 10:37:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12FC1A015E; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:37:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pk6aW5ED_pIf; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:37:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A321A00A2; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:37:36 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20140124183736.8332.44483.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:37:36 -0800 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] Last Call: (Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:37:42 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification describes extensions to definitions of TLVs used by the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and the MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), to increase their abilities to accommodate protocol extensions. This document updates OLSRv2 and RFC6130. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From sratliff@cisco.com Wed Jan 29 08:17:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A5D1A046C for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:17:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.035 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8AmVZB1E144g for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:17:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D411A03BF for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:17:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11277; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391012223; x=1392221823; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=iF25CuNpKWEZtC3yBltOXYDfmnpbievH5amISlTQ8JA=; b=cRn00TghmEKmvgbAw81y+8D9ocVsf7G+wbC+N8IzVMhHOHzqVOn1MUaD OBhlKLI4r+tain9a2P3+7mMWJXZcckSTUcYPEm34Ixj5ZRHf3GJGJTbqQ SMsXqH4BVUQSLSC9JcIuRHTicoDWPOlbGxd19Vph+9M2dI4rmafwB3Yf5 E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAAAp6VKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABZgkhEOFa8f4EHFnSCJQEBAQQnLiQQAgEIBwoDAQIoBzIUCQgBAQQBDQWIBcl9F44dCgcBJRoRBgEGA4MbgRQEiRGPF5Ifgy2BaAkXIg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,742,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="300494253" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2014 16:17:02 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0TGH0iN026664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:17:02 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.14]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:17:00 -0600 From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" To: Ulrich Herberg , List List Thread-Topic: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG Thread-Index: Ac79nZI7Ef01aagnSm2nN57hxsYlKQao5nyAAT+TGQAAABbNgA== Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:17:00 +0000 Message-ID: <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.179.213] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_46C12FA8EDDF45F1819A017E9D7F9B3Eciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:17:17 -0000 --_000_46C12FA8EDDF45F1819A017E9D7F9B3Eciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chris/Thomas, My apologies for the delay. Working Group, What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a WG do= c? Regards, Stan On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg > wrote: Joe, Stan, have you received the below email? Can you please respond? Thanks Ulrich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Heide Clausen > Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG To: Christopher Dearlove > Cc: Joe Macker >, Stan Ratliff >, Ulrich H= erberg >, Adrian Farrel > Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director, First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time with yo= ur loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be with = you in the new year. I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you a bit= more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding this, = I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of draft-dearlove-= manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also this document fo= rward, hopefully rapidly, towards publication as experimental RFC. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Respectfully, Thomas On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > wrote: Joe, Stan We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which inclu= des what we knew we were missing from the previous draft. We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this close = to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after those = as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other draf= ts I hope). In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, Christopher -- Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http:= //www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 ******************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************** --_000_46C12FA8EDDF45F1819A017E9D7F9B3Eciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <1C93A941EF55E746A2BCC0327E9CF15E@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chris/Thomas, 

My apologies for the delay. 

Working Group, 

What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a = WG doc? 

Regards,
Stan 


On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
 wrote:

Joe, Stan,

have you received the below email? Can you please respond?

Thanks
Ulrich

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.or= g>
Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG
To: Christopher Dearlove <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Cc: Joe Macker <joseph.mac= ker@nrl.navy.mil>, Stan Ratliff <sratliff@cisco.com>, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>


Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director,

First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time wi= th your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be = with you in the new year.

I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you = a bit more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding t= his, I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of draft-dear= love-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also this document forward, hopefully rapidly, to= wards publication as experimental RFC. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Thomas

On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@baesy= stems.com> wrote:

Joe, Stan
 
We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which inclu= des what we knew we were missing from the previous draft.
 
We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this close = to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after those = as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other draf= ts I hope).
 
In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all,<= /div>
 
Christopher
 
--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communicati= ons Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove= @baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limite= d
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
 

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************




--_000_46C12FA8EDDF45F1819A017E9D7F9B3Eciscocom_-- From Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com Wed Jan 29 08:59:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4382C1A02F2 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:59:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q2SZ5bvMVIZs for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:59:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ukmta3.baesystems.com (ukmta3.baesystems.com [20.133.40.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17BD1A0220 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:59:05 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,743,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="345160603" Received: from unknown (HELO baemasodc005.greenlnk.net) ([10.108.52.29]) by Baemasodc001ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2014 16:59:02 +0000 From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,743,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="44241454" Received: from glkxh0005v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.36]) by baemasodc005.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2014 16:59:02 +0000 Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.5.106]) by GLKXH0005V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:59:02 +0000 To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" , Ulrich Herberg , List List Thread-Topic: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG Thread-Index: Ac79nZI7Ef01aagnSm2nN57hxsYlKQao5nyAAT+TGQAAABbNgAALTPRg Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:59:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D402460F4GLKXM0002VGREEN_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:59:10 -0000 --_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D402460F4GLKXM0002VGREEN_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Of course if and when we make it a WG document, we've got details to discus= s. But the authors believe this is a coherent document that covers all the = bases for a set of design decisions (which was not true of the previous dra= ft, which had some significant omissions). Made possible by the earlier acc= eptance (now at IETF LC) of the TLV extensions draft. -- Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http:= //www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stan Ratliff (srat= liff) Sent: 29 January 2014 16:17 To: Ulrich Herberg; List List Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG *** WARNING *** This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an exter= nal partner or the internet. Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachme= nts or reply. For information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you= receive, click here. If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process. Chris/Thomas, My apologies for the delay. Working Group, What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a WG do= c? Regards, Stan On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg > wrote: Joe, Stan, have you received the below email? Can you please respond? Thanks Ulrich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Heide Clausen > Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG To: Christopher Dearlove > Cc: Joe Macker >, Stan Ratliff >, Ulrich H= erberg >, Adrian Farrel > Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director, First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time with yo= ur loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be with = you in the new year. I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you a bit= more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding this, = I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of draft-dearlove-= manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also this document fo= rward, hopefully rapidly, towards publication as experimental RFC. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Respectfully, Thomas On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > wrote: Joe, Stan We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which inclu= des what we knew we were missing from the previous draft. We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this close = to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after those = as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other draf= ts I hope). In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, Christopher -- Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http:= //www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 ******************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************** --_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D402460F4GLKXM0002VGREEN_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Of course if and when we = make it a WG document, we’ve got details to discuss. But the authors = believe this is a coherent document that covers all the bases for a set of design decisions (which was not true of the previous draft, w= hich had some significant omissions). Made possible by the earlier acceptan= ce (now at IETF LC) of the TLV extensions draft.

 <= /p>

chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (O= perations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

 <= /p>

From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
Sent: 29 January 2014 16:17
To: Ulrich Herberg; List List
Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -&= gt; WG

 

 

*** WARNING ***=

This message originates from outside our organ= isation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Co= nsider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachment= s or reply.
Fo= r information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you rec= eive, click here.
If= you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process.

Chris/Thomas, 

 

My apologies for the delay. 

 

Working Group, 

 

What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with t= his document as a WG doc? 

 

Regards,

Stan 

 

 

On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name><= /p>

 wrote:



Joe, Stan,=

have you received the= below email? Can you please respond?

Thanks
Ulrich

 

---------- Forwarded = message ----------
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG
To: Christopher Dearlove <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Cc: Joe Macker <joseph.mac= ker@nrl.navy.mil>, Stan Ratliff <sratliff@cisco.com>, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>

Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director,

 

First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to = spend some time with your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and= happiness may be with you in the new year.

 

I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (be= low), sent to you a bit more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from = you to regarding this, I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adop= tion of draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also this document forward, hopefully rapidly, to= wards publication as experimental RFC. 

 

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

 

Respectfully,

 

Thomas

 

On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK= ) <Ch= ris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:



Joe, Stan

 

We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-= olsrv2-multitopology-02, which includes what we knew we were missing from t= he previous draft.

 

We would therefore like to ask the WG t= o accept this. Obviously this close to the Christmas/New Year holiday, afte= r those (as immediately after those as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other drafts I hope).

 

In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and H= appy New Year to all,

 

Christopher

 

--

Christopher Dearlove

Senior Principal Engineer= , Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 2= 42194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124=

chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

 

**********************************************************= **********
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.
********************************************************************

 

 

 

--_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D402460F4GLKXM0002VGREEN_-- From sratliff@cisco.com Wed Jan 29 09:15:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587101A02F2 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.035 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4uLw-ptB_u86 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:15:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913DB1A029B for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:15:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13045; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391015717; x=1392225317; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=X1N1ENJXn6MZSAYJh6o0AQho2scu7D7WVevt9dOe+5A=; b=NHj4VBi0QgZc2FpdN4nTmevNwd8/ncCmSx75puJf8mUND1Ya1euVG0u2 4oaN7JvTtyfDAP9anwyYZ5SJy+PlU/DZ4/vncJC44SJW/hOkNglIoLuRM 57sk6Luw/J6eN6C928F23D3z1PZCkjQsXP5fbIrVsd+54sdmQMWLPogHO E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAOY26VKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgkhEOFa9AoEHFnSCJQEBAQQBAQEkLhkbAgEIBwoDAQIoBycLFAkIAQEEARKIBQ3JfReOHQoHASUaFwEGgx6BFASJEY8Xkh+DLYFoCRci X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,743,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="300536967" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2014 17:14:56 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0THEuua020037 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:14:56 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.14]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:14:55 -0600 From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" To: Ulrich Herberg , List List Thread-Topic: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG Thread-Index: Ac79nZI7Ef01aagnSm2nN57hxsYlKQao5nyAAT+TGQAAABbNgAACBdAA Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:14:54 +0000 Message-ID: <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.179.213] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_514471C2F7104EBB9AFB9B44FD1189D1ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:15:23 -0000 --_000_514471C2F7104EBB9AFB9B44FD1189D1ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello again working group participants - Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked are usu= ally not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase: If there are any significant objections to accepting this document as a WG = doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider lack of= comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document. Regards, Stan On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) > wrote: Chris/Thomas, My apologies for the delay. Working Group, What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a WG do= c? Regards, Stan On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg > wrote: Joe, Stan, have you received the below email? Can you please respond? Thanks Ulrich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Heide Clausen > Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG To: Christopher Dearlove > Cc: Joe Macker >, Stan Ratliff >, Ulrich H= erberg >, Adrian Farrel > Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director, First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time with yo= ur loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be with = you in the new year. I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you a bit= more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding this, = I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of draft-dearlove-= manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also this document fo= rward, hopefully rapidly, towards publication as experimental RFC. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Respectfully, Thomas On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > wrote: Joe, Stan We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which inclu= des what we knew we were missing from the previous draft. We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this close = to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after those = as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other draf= ts I hope). In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, Christopher -- Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http:= //www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 ******************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --_000_514471C2F7104EBB9AFB9B44FD1189D1ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <3E30E81B8ABF9B4791AB03D1FB4C4C29@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello again working group participants - 

Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked ar= e usually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase: 

If there are any significant objections to accepting this document as = a WG doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider la= ck of comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document. 

Regards,
Stan

On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff@cisco.com> wrote:

Chris/Thomas, 

My apologies for the delay. 

Working Group, 

What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a = WG doc? 

Regards,
Stan 


On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
 wrote:

Joe, Stan,

have you received the below email? Can you please respond?

Thanks
Ulrich

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.or= g>
Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG
To: Christopher Dearlove <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Cc: Joe Macker <joseph.mac= ker@nrl.navy.mil>, Stan Ratliff <sratliff@cisco.com>, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>


Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director,

First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time wi= th your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be = with you in the new year.

I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you = a bit more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding t= his, I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of draft-dear= love-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also this document forward, hopefully rapidly, to= wards publication as experimental RFC. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Thomas

On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@baesy= stems.com> wrote:

Joe, Stan
 
We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which inclu= des what we knew we were missing from the previous draft.
 
We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this close = to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after those = as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other draf= ts I hope).
 
In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all,<= /div>
 
Christopher
 
--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communicati= ons Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove= @baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limite= d
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, = Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
 

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************




_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--_000_514471C2F7104EBB9AFB9B44FD1189D1ciscocom_-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Wed Jan 29 14:21:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5EF1A02C0 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:21:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qcnMc3Srstsc for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A6D1A02D6 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id y10so2230895pdj.18 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:21:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KuMWRH79lqrfIIvqmdR5CcfG//2woeU2BxUnoEnrOco=; b=A3CBS6Nk6Lu1pjH5yjoErvMD+dFx0Jnb2N04OdXxEUuaxV9mQfGBH0SpQuLqyUvcw+ 4LGGU9oA0FZkeCLd2lv0LDQ6G5TI0LLn/yhmed47ODyRCRFFgzuMvRpBDZ97Fm9se5+x VM0SQb96ZL9c4t98Fu90n+0lejcm1RKi8tRYWMcLzc3qaFNu6ACIoGS6QlvGOTpwENs1 3grG39Pfj3qLruliPcb/lb7374d2jX7GoC8FVvVU0SPGWXBQNRp2g5p4IQ/QnA1efQYf i14dLZcSw2QNOWhkYRYhVyqWvHC+laX/ztQ0DmdTAI8wE2k0uIt+9ZFOCL2NWYIFpCfn FFIg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.14.41 with SMTP id m9mr10718538pac.123.1391034088968; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.0.104 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:21:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:21:28 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520f517be568504f1235cfa Cc: List List Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:21:35 -0000 --bcaec520f517be568504f1235cfa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello, I think it is early for adopting and should need us asking for document discussed on the list. My question before reading is why is this work important for OLSR? Please explain or discuss. Do we have priority works within milestone?Did we finish delay work to adopt more work? Please help, AB On Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote: > Hello again working group participants - > > Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked are > usually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase: > > If there are any significant objections to accepting this document as a > WG doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider lack > of comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document. > > Regards, > Stan > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) > > wrote: > > Chris/Thomas, > > My apologies for the delay. > > Working Group, > > What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a WG > doc? > > Regards, > Stan > > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg > wrote: > > Joe, Stan, > > have you received the below email? Can you please respond? > > Thanks > Ulrich > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Thomas Heide Clausen* > Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG > To: Christopher Dearlove > Cc: Joe Macker , Stan Ratliff < > sratliff@cisco.com>, Ulrich Herberg , Adrian Farrel < > adrian@olddog.co.uk> > > > Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director, > > First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time with > your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be > with you in the new year. > > I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you a > bit more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding > this, I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of > draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also > this document forward, hopefully rapidly, towards publication as > experimental RFC. > > Thank you in advance for your consideration. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas > > On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < > Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote: > > Joe, Stan > > We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which > includes what we knew we were missing from the previous draft. > > We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this > close to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after > those as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on > other drafts I hope). > > In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, > > Christopher > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > --bcaec520f517be568504f1235cfa Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

I think it is early for=A0adopting and shou= ld need us=A0asking for=A0document discussed=A0on the list. My question bef= ore reading is why is this work important for OLSR? Please explain or discu= ss.=A0

Do we have=A0priority works within=A0milestone?Did we finish= delay=A0work to adopt more work? Please help,

AB<= div>
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:
=
Hello again working group participants -=A0

Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked ar= e usually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase:=A0

If there are any significant objections to accepting this document as = a WG doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider la= ck of comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document.=A0

Regards,
Stan

On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff@cisco.com> wrote:

Chris/Thomas,=A0

My apologies for the delay.=A0

Working Group,=A0

What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a = WG doc?=A0

Regards,
Stan=A0


On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.nam= e>
=A0wrote:

Joe, Stan,

have you received the below email? Can you please respond?

Thanks
Ulrich

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomascla= usen.org>
Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG
To: Christopher Dearlove <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Cc: Joe Macker <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>, Stan Ratliff <= sratliff@cisco.com>, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>


Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director,

First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time wi= th your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be = with you in the new year.

I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you = a bit more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regardi= ng this, I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of draft-= dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also this document forward, hopefully rapidly, to= wards publication as experimental RFC.=A0

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Thomas

On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dea= rlove@baesystems.com> wrote:

Joe, Stan
=A0
We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which inclu= des what we knew we were missing from the previous draft.
=A0
We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this close = to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after those = as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other draf= ts I hope).
=A0
In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all,<= /div>
=A0
Christopher
=A0
--
Christopher Dearlove
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--bcaec520f517be568504f1235cfa-- From jpmacker@gmail.com Wed Jan 29 16:51:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F641A0475 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:51:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yN0u_xVg4nu3 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:51:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x234.google.com (mail-qa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25061A046B for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:51:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id j15so3580041qaq.11 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:51:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to; bh=zDXgt+6Z9UxcUdDrM8PzxSf2ncac+JjIgblYdOfskTY=; b=G1THCvs5rvf6JJlAdQGIzemJVGExw2LWrcauKVLKZcU5616PxM15r8/duRGfDUEKw2 vVzJ+FhNyxAb8+8Il7wwKxSaR19oa5tH/AC5GYge/0ILUDJXjY+1ls1XCiejs8na7Uiz ifnOc9MLHW9oXAzjsoPFM+E2ihpSFpJ3EO88/y6H+jDPANPnksj7PLBgnOMMXOFbQh0T Ef+sJ7yPdWhSsPcW4Lkzc8ubjP5vDsOacVUK73u4RB3Yf86w83B/Ax0M9XfnimaQUWGA prQByFOGpCR4njNMwR0lRRtfNa6pH9F24qd5h0yd9xRfH369xVpOtv1HRY3L+t1bShdE knTg== X-Received: by 10.140.95.179 with SMTP id i48mr16429223qge.1.1391043086747; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:51:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from vpn217206.nrl.navy.mil (vpn217206.nrl.navy.mil. [132.250.217.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j50sm6045898qgf.14.2014.01.29.16.51.25 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:51:26 -0800 (PST) From: Joe Macker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AF83DB93-2118-4986-A2D9-900D284BF886" Message-Id: <6BB38E9E-715D-43BB-84F0-28D4E783E885@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:51:25 -0500 References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> To: List List In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:51:33 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AF83DB93-2118-4986-A2D9-900D284BF886 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 To answer broadly, now that olsrv2 core document work is reaching its = basic framework milestones in my opinion the consideration of such = extension work is not delaying or harming other milestone work but is = targets at extending and enhancing initial design capabilities. As = metric-based routing is matured and the support for multiple types of = traffic flows is also considered multi-topology routing is a natural = engineering candidate that network designers consider. This is the = basic applicability statement and is not a new concept although WG = designs for OLSRv2 do not exist. This is the value-added engineering = purpose. =20 There are plenty of known operational reasons why one would consider = multi topology routing and it already has precedence in being used with = link state protocols. Not saying its always the right choice but its a = potential tool in your toolbox. =20 =46rom the ID, its seems clear that its purpose is to specify a way to = establish and maintain such topologies with OLSRv2 and related metrics = support designs. It would be great to hear from others in the WG what = they think especially after they look over and read the document. Regards, -Joe On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Abdussalam Baryun = wrote: > Hello, >=20 > I think it is early for adopting and should need us asking for = document discussed on the list. My question before reading is why is = this work important for OLSR? Please explain or discuss.=20 >=20 > Do we have priority works within milestone?Did we finish delay work to = adopt more work? Please help, >=20 > AB >=20 > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote: > Hello again working group participants -=20 >=20 > Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked = are usually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase:=20 >=20 > If there are any significant objections to accepting this document as = a WG doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider = lack of comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document.=20 >=20 > Regards, > Stan >=20 > On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) = wrote: >=20 >> Chris/Thomas,=20 >>=20 >> My apologies for the delay.=20 >>=20 >> Working Group,=20 >>=20 >> What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a = WG doc?=20 >>=20 >> Regards, >> Stan=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg >> wrote: >>=20 >>> Joe, Stan, >>>=20 >>> have you received the below email? Can you please respond? >>>=20 >>> Thanks >>> Ulrich >>>=20 >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Thomas Heide Clausen >>> Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM >>> Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG >>> To: Christopher Dearlove >>> Cc: Joe Macker , Stan Ratliff = , Ulrich Herberg , Adrian = Farrel >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director, >>>=20 >>> First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time = with your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness = may be with you in the new year. >>>=20 >>> I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to = you a bit more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to = regarding this, I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption = of draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance = also this document forward, hopefully rapidly, towards publication as = experimental RFC.=20 >>>=20 >>> Thank you in advance for your consideration. >>>=20 >>> Respectfully, >>>=20 >>> Thomas >>>=20 >>> On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) = wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Joe, Stan >>>> =20 >>>> We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, = which includes what we knew we were missing from the previous draft. >>>> =20 >>>> We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously = this close to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as = immediately after those as possible) would be appropriate. (Same = timeframe as IETF LC on other drafts I hope). >>>> =20 >>>> In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, >>>> =20 >>>> Christopher >>>> =20 >>>> -- >>>> Christopher Dearlove >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --Apple-Mail=_AF83DB93-2118-4986-A2D9-900D284BF886 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 To = answer broadly, now that olsrv2 core document work is reaching its basic = framework milestones in my opinion the consideration of such extension = work is not delaying or harming other milestone work but is targets at = extending and enhancing initial design capabilities.  As = metric-based routing is matured and the support for multiple types of = traffic flows is also considered multi-topology routing is a natural = engineering candidate that network designers consider.  This is the = basic applicability statement and is not a new concept although WG = designs for OLSRv2 do not exist.  This is the value-added = engineering purpose.
 
There are plenty of known = operational reasons why one would consider multi topology routing and it = already has precedence in being used with link state protocols. =  Not saying its always the right choice but its a potential tool in = your toolbox.
 
=46rom the ID, its seems clear = that its purpose is to specify a way to establish and maintain such = topologies with OLSRv2 and related metrics support designs.  It = would be great to hear from others in the WG what they think especially = after they look over and read the = document.

Regards,
-Joe

<= /div>

On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Abdussalam Baryun = <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

Hello,

I think it is early = for adopting and should need us asking for document = discussed on the list. My question before reading is why is this = work important for OLSR? Please explain or discuss. 

Do we have priority works within milestone?Did = we finish delay work to adopt more work? Please = help,

AB

On Wednesday, January 29, = 2014, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:
Hello again working group participants - 

Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked = are usually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase: 

If there are any significant objections to accepting this document = as a WG doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will = consider lack of comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG = document. 

Regards,
Stan

On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff@cisco.com> wrote:

Chris/Thomas, 

My apologies for the delay. 

Working Group, 

What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as = a WG doc? 

Regards,
Stan 


On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg = <ulrich@herberg.name>
 wrote:

Joe, Stan,

have you received the below email? Can you please respond?

Thanks
Ulrich

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG
To: Christopher Dearlove = <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Cc: Joe Macker <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>, Stan Ratliff = <sratliff@cisco.com>, Ulrich Herberg = <ulrich@herberg.name>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>


Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director,

First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time = with your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness = may be with you in the new year.

I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to = you a bit more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to = regarding this, I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption = of draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also this document forward, hopefully rapidly, = towards publication as experimental RFC. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Thomas

On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) = <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:

Joe, Stan
 
We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which = includes what we knew we were missing from the previous = draft.
 
We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this = close to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately = after those as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF = LC on other drafts I hope).
 
In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to = all,
 
Christopher
 
--
Christopher = Dearlove
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

_______________________________________________
manet mailing = list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/manet

= --Apple-Mail=_AF83DB93-2118-4986-A2D9-900D284BF886-- From christopher.dearlove@gmail.com Wed Jan 29 17:22:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683401A03CC for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:22:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R-l0MYyOUvCN for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2002A1A034D for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:22:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a1so4969634wgh.4 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:22:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=7j7fKjOFUDEnWWE5BwClUV+uMg5j/nQfZGzix4gfBLU=; b=isK4c3iTkEvkaZZOqVNl1K+TfRGt94qRhp7ogl4RcEIQjUm+qmg0BGrd0+Qlt8DlB0 nfUrGyHwDm4B8falySKyflZmP+sECZnp9bn0W8Z39y/PG2h5ADTQ56yalvN+jjkVkuMn u0Ag+wtuKChELDFig/vy439bXrCIZKIhnjcdxojUHbjUkX7jyXfiWgT780qfUQqVRExH cR1O1Rvm1T6S7cS0GTUh2BIVcLxuR9ExcyEDsiq+I+zEwNxuwgnFUd5z/28mq0123787 MgKJ9hfIyn702M5jHZ88dtYmhQ+QhEc7TJXw5xWz1OOpiynylattBt6av8hnuTotwl5Q twWA== X-Received: by 10.180.98.165 with SMTP id ej5mr2299941wib.33.1391044940616; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:22:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.254.5] (mnemosyne.demon.co.uk. [62.49.16.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y13sm8673598wjr.8.2014.01.29.17.22.19 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:22:19 -0800 (PST) References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> <6BB38E9E-715D-43BB-84F0-28D4E783E885@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <6BB38E9E-715D-43BB-84F0-28D4E783E885@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-533114C1-B089-4A12-8167-5926C4B48277 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a) From: Christopher Dearlove Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:22:18 +0000 To: Joe Macker Cc: List List Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:22:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail-533114C1-B089-4A12-8167-5926C4B48277 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To be even more definite, there is no other core work this is competing with= . The only incomplete core work is the quite independent reactive protocol. A= ll the core OLSRv2 documents are with the RFC Editor. There are two other OL= SRv2 related documents in IETF LC, i.e. accepted by this WG, the primary pur= pose of one of which is to enable extensions such as this. In short, the objection has no substance in this regard. On the positive sid= e, Joe has described the basic reasons. > On 30 Jan 2014, at 00:51, Joe Macker wrote: >=20 > To answer broadly, now that olsrv2 core document work is reaching its basi= c framework milestones in my opinion the consideration of such extension wor= k is not delaying or harming other milestone work but is targets at extendin= g and enhancing initial design capabilities. As metric-based routing is mat= ured and the support for multiple types of traffic flows is also considered m= ulti-topology routing is a natural engineering candidate that network design= ers consider. This is the basic applicability statement and is not a new co= ncept although WG designs for OLSRv2 do not exist. This is the value-added e= ngineering purpose. > =20 > There are plenty of known operational reasons why one would consider multi= topology routing and it already has precedence in being used with link stat= e protocols. Not saying its always the right choice but its a potential too= l in your toolbox. > =20 > =46rom the ID, its seems clear that its purpose is to specify a way to est= ablish and maintain such topologies with OLSRv2 and related metrics support d= esigns. It would be great to hear from others in the WG what they think esp= ecially after they look over and read the document. >=20 > Regards, > -Joe >=20 >=20 >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >>=20 >> Hello, >>=20 >> I think it is early for adopting and should need us asking for document d= iscussed on the list. My question before reading is why is this work importa= nt for OLSR? Please explain or discuss.=20 >>=20 >> Do we have priority works within milestone?Did we finish delay work to ad= opt more work? Please help, >>=20 >> AB >>=20 >>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote: >>> Hello again working group participants -=20 >>>=20 >>> Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked are u= sually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase:=20 >>>=20 >>> If there are any significant objections to accepting this document as a W= G doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider lack o= f comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document.=20 >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> Stan >>>=20 >>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Chris/Thomas,=20 >>>>=20 >>>> My apologies for the delay.=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Working Group,=20 >>>>=20 >>>> What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a W= G doc?=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Regards, >>>> Stan=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg >>>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> Joe, Stan, >>>>>=20 >>>>> have you received the below email? Can you please respond? >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Ulrich >>>>>=20 >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Thomas Heide Clausen >>>>> Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG >>>>> To: Christopher Dearlove >>>>> Cc: Joe Macker , Stan Ratliff , Ulrich Herberg , Adrian Farrel >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director, >>>>>=20 >>>>> First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time wi= th your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be w= ith you in the new year. >>>>>=20 >>>>> I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you a= bit more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding thi= s, I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of draft-dearlov= e-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also this document f= orward, hopefully rapidly, towards publication as experimental RFC.=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thomas >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Joe, Stan >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which= includes what we knew we were missing from the previous draft. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this c= lose to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after th= ose as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other d= rafts I hope). >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> Christopher >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Christopher Dearlove >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> manet mailing list >>>> manet@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --Apple-Mail-533114C1-B089-4A12-8167-5926C4B48277 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To be even more definite, there is no o= ther core work this is competing with. The only incomplete core work is the q= uite independent reactive protocol. All the core OLSRv2 documents are with t= he RFC Editor. There are two other OLSRv2 related documents in IETF LC, i.e.= accepted by this WG, the primary purpose of one of which is to enable exten= sions such as this.

In short, the objection has= no substance in this regard. On the positive side, Joe has described the ba= sic reasons.

On 30 Jan 2014, at 00:51, Joe Macker <jpmacker@gmail.com> wrote:

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
To answer broadly, now that olsrv2 core docum= ent work is reaching its basic framework milestones in my opinion the consid= eration of such extension work is not delaying or harming other milestone wo= rk but is targets at extending and enhancing initial design capabilities. &n= bsp;As metric-based routing is matured and the support for multiple types of= traffic flows is also considered multi-topology routing is a natural engine= ering candidate that network designers consider.  This is the basic app= licability statement and is not a new concept although WG designs for OLSRv2= do not exist.  This is the value-added engineering purpose.
 =
There are plenty of known operational reasons why one would consi= der multi topology routing and it already has precedence in being used with l= ink state protocols.  Not saying its always the right choice but its a p= otential tool in your toolbox.
 
=46rom the ID, its= seems clear that its purpose is to specify a way to establish and maintain s= uch topologies with OLSRv2 and related metrics support designs.  It wou= ld be great to hear from others in the WG what they think especially after t= hey look over and read the document.

Regards,
=
-Joe


On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:21 PM= , Abdussalam Baryun <abduss= alambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

I think it is= early for adopting and should need us asking for document di= scussed on the list. My question before reading is why is this work imp= ortant for OLSR? Please explain or discuss. 

Do we have priority works within milestone?Did we f= inish delay work to adopt more work? Please help,

<= div>AB

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrot= e:
Hello again working group participants - 

Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked are= usually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase: 

If there are any significant objections to accepting this document as a= WG doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider lack= of comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document. 

Regards,
Stan

On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff@c= isco.com> wrote:

Chris/Thomas, 

My apologies for the delay. 

Working Group, 

What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a W= G doc? 

Regards,
Stan 


On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name= >
 wrote:

Joe, Stan,

have you received the below email? Can you please respond?

Thanks
Ulrich

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclau= sen.org>
Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG
To: Christopher Dearlove <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Cc: Joe Macker <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>, Stan Ratliff <<= a>sratliff@cisco.com>, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name&= gt;, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>


Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director,

First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time wit= h your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be wi= th you in the new year.

I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you a= bit more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding thi= s, I permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of draft-dearlov= e-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also this document forward, hopefully rapidly, tow= ards publication as experimental RFC. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Thomas

On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dear= love@baesystems.com> wrote:

Joe, Stan
 
We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which includ= es what we knew we were missing from the previous draft.
=
 
We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this close t= o the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after those as= possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other drafts I= hope).
 
In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all,
 
Christopher
 
--
Christopher Dearlove
<= /blockquote>
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
m= anet@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet<= /a>

=
= --Apple-Mail-533114C1-B089-4A12-8167-5926C4B48277-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Wed Jan 29 22:47:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544FD1A04EB for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:47:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qglOGQEdixjG for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:46:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pb0-x230.google.com (mail-pb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F571A04CE for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:46:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id rr13so2755362pbb.7 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:46:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=IqjIhBmOCmFrXK4+Lap9BDsA7zdqD5tx5HRLWHoQWRQ=; b=ZTVs43o/opTypuho4S6CYZclRzr8sfu6wMrM7y541VWCh9YcpOUaaCyHr4ClF+MLl7 shax4+uddazdTPw33CA1FO6Fmv5YERtqZaxFOFi38wgdMfYz4wmWwebLio4l18BHM7Ch q65Owx97+T7540NLLeXCMbcOtdkoQj7XKG3hvIl/kmtze9Se1g8jR6BwJL3iPCy+95Se p9eqbVcv4IlUf0957yJciBozIsIEiHxJDXvXb3sUOFFoGK04ZbnQHRjhudCAS2iQgfCh S5eWJiE3KXx+G9zr0+cP6qU2M7YbmE1FPzVJ1G5QJYvLrDTODfehllWCSBcJ2PAW8qPU eO9Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.159.228 with SMTP id xf4mr12778798pbb.74.1391064416865; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:46:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.0.104 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:46:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6BB38E9E-715D-43BB-84F0-28D4E783E885@gmail.com> References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> <6BB38E9E-715D-43BB-84F0-28D4E783E885@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:46:56 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Joe Macker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd75a786d55aa04f12a6c00 Cc: List List Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:47:01 -0000 --047d7bd75a786d55aa04f12a6c00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thursday, January 30, 2014, Joe Macker > > > From the ID, its seems clear that its purpose is to specify a way to > establish and maintain such topologies with OLSRv2 and related metrics > support designs. It would be great to hear from others in the WG what they > think especially after they look over and read the document. > Thanks Joe. Ok, I will read the document, but usually I like to get discussion/answers from authors on their individual drafts before reviewing it but I did quickly look over it and I asked to get motivated. The purpose mentioned in the draft was not clear to me why our WG-OLSRv2 cannot do multi-topology without this extension, so I need answer from authors. Your above purpose does not describe why OLSRv2 is not able to do what this draft can. AB --047d7bd75a786d55aa04f12a6c00 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, January 30, 2014, Joe Macker
=A0
From the ID, it= s seems clear that its purpose is to specify a way to establish and maintai= n such topologies with OLSRv2 and related metrics support designs. =A0It wo= uld be great to hear from others in the WG what they think especially after= they look over and read the document.

Thanks Joe.=A0Ok, I will read the do= cument, but usually I like to get discussion/answers=A0from authors on thei= r individual=A0drafts=A0before reviewing it but I did quickly=A0look over i= t and I asked to get motivated.=A0
The purpose mentioned in the draft was not clear to me why our WG-OLSR= v2 cannot do multi-topology without this extension, so I need answer=A0from= authors. Your above purpose does not describe=A0why OLSRv2 is not able to = do what this draft=A0can.=A0

AB

--047d7bd75a786d55aa04f12a6c00-- From hrogge@gmail.com Wed Jan 29 23:43:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8949F1A0476 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:43:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XPmdZmSkvQ6e for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:43:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x234.google.com (mail-qa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8DB1A04FA for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:42:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id j15so3841569qaq.25 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:42:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=e/sUGraY8aVFeIenZTYnYFNEkzffiqWIWPPRFB+WpKA=; b=J238uUp2qw5GHiNHg3LOMN9YghFDoyqQum9F6OHckjGOJQ4fX7ioWDDIG0yuJ9I97X boR7PHwu6e4JysnUSjAwfiueqLBbPvvFKEbatboWV0/njiHG2kdghcsLS+GsEZxtVGEf URqvhn6fMv/b2DHfxvL+qblnrZwtQw2hWleT7pOpVrgmz3ZPTtNhw4Dx8kjpYZfw6D/F 8DaZU4Wbopy9sAeM4igvTGKShi1onv0nukdZut+xbesa1r9H9aeusFCbHfW0Ib+F+NOs gW8Pp1N61kNqmrWehysaA44prDrl+BlSf7cd9EoIQQEaMKROwwX/4QQnQ6fIFQehdTJT yAhg== X-Received: by 10.140.92.213 with SMTP id b79mr18210025qge.108.1391067776618; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:42:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.130.2 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:42:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> From: Henning Rogge Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:42:36 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: List List Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:43:02 -0000 I say we should adopt this document as a WG doc, multitopology routing without the need of multiple completely independent OLSRv2 instances is one of the missing features of the protocol. As I discussed with Christopher in Berlin we at Fraunhofer FKIE see already two applications for MTR... one is multi-metric routing (e.g. one metric measuring airtime use, another one delay), the other one is overlapping network partitions (let everyone participating in normal messages, but keep "priority/secret" messages among a subgroup of nodes you explicitly trust). Henning Rogge On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote: > Hello again working group participants - > > Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked are > usually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase: > > If there are any significant objections to accepting this document as a WG > doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider lack of > comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document. > > Regards, > Stan > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) > wrote: > > Chris/Thomas, > > My apologies for the delay. > > Working Group, > > What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a WG > doc? > > Regards, > Stan > > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg > wrote: > > Joe, Stan, > > have you received the below email? Can you please respond? > > Thanks > Ulrich > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Thomas Heide Clausen > Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG > To: Christopher Dearlove > Cc: Joe Macker , Stan Ratliff > , Ulrich Herberg , Adrian Farrel > > > > Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director, > > First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time with > your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be with > you in the new year. > > I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you a bit > more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding this, I > permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of > draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also > this document forward, hopefully rapidly, towards publication as > experimental RFC. > > Thank you in advance for your consideration. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas > > On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > wrote: > > Joe, Stan > > We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which > includes what we knew we were missing from the previous draft. > > We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this close > to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after those > as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other > drafts I hope). > > In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, > > Christopher > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, > Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > ******************************************************************** > 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. > ******************************************************************** > > > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > From l.wood@surrey.ac.uk Wed Jan 29 23:54:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A81D1A03C0 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:54:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7-_e6OcQPnkF for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:54:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A971A02BF for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:54:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [195.245.231.67:55075] by server-11.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id A7/38-23886-6250AE25; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:54:14 +0000 X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1391068453!34913996!1 X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.39] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.9.16; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 6258 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2014 07:54:13 -0000 Received: from exht012p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.39) by server-14.tower-82.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Jan 2014 07:54:13 -0000 Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.204]) by EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.39]) with mapi; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:54:13 +0000 From: To: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:54:12 +0000 Thread-Topic: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG Thread-Index: Ac8dhxvdzeOw0lT4SJSsAPL0RxbAHAACCOF0 Message-ID: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346FA@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> <6BB38E9E-715D-43BB-84F0-28D4E783E885@gmail.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:54:20 -0000 Abdussalam, > Ok, I will read the document, but usually I like to get discussion/answer= s from > authors on their individual drafts before reviewing it but I did quickly = look over it and I asked to get motivated. So the authors have to spend time writing their draft and spend time answer= ing your questions satisfactorily before you condescend to exert effort on = reading their draft. Despite the fact that reading is a far quicker process= than writing. Your time must be far, far more valuable that that of the authors. > was not clear to me why our WG-OLSRv2 cannot do multi-topology without th= is extension it's mentioned in the draft that you haven't read. Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: manet [manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [abduss= alambaryun@gmail.com] Sent: 30 January 2014 06:46 To: Joe Macker Cc: List List Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG On Thursday, January 30, 2014, Joe Macker >From the ID, its seems clear that its purpose is to specify a way to establ= ish and maintain such topologies with OLSRv2 and related metrics support de= signs. It would be great to hear from others in the WG what they think esp= ecially after they look over and read the document. Thanks Joe. Ok, I will read the document, but usually I like to get discuss= ion/answers from authors on their individual drafts before reviewing it but= I did quickly look over it and I asked to get motivated. The purpose mentioned in the draft was not clear to me why our WG-OLSRv2 ca= nnot do multi-topology without this extension, so I need answer from author= s. Your above purpose does not describe why OLSRv2 is not able to do what t= his draft can. AB From christopher.dearlove@gmail.com Thu Jan 30 01:31:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F6C1A03A7 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:31:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.23 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LGvmr2iBFxjg for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:31:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-x22c.google.com (mail-ee0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95181A037E for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:31:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id c13so1462372eek.3 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:31:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=1ma2dED02jZEIRx9qEAb8qo1Y1NxZ8RlDcVmxYr44pI=; b=PSyr2KH2k8BNfdXM+RM2RUoRY1w2UT0Ke0IVfM+oXfFpY8PPuwaqIXGE/u0eF7qQzr 6iBuXSaMpk6ACBkAnBVTSmvz5bQZnrhi5Kib8x1B7nf5infMpxWhfQSU5y78a+TBn6GW iaE7sXBwiHlLuZ0t56MxBGJqVmAafRCYWKSNYgvJn2q772nTSZ6XrusLq6TC5OmqHA0p F37Xseyww/NHl87EO+95QZsjXtSybFFl+qqBHx1QSXROWW5IXKh2iRFA4pCpIzjR6zG0 6tTri8RbzaUkmLYz42nLapJavwxe0u0ViC0tq7lA3zXdO4iTNRu1ijLeWfGDdV0kvvan /7UQ== X-Received: by 10.14.224.70 with SMTP id w46mr586892eep.89.1391074304158; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:31:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.117.218] (dab-far1-h-1-5.dab.02.net. [82.132.221.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n7sm19913677eef.5.2014.01.30.01.31.41 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:31:43 -0800 (PST) References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6C419D05-0DDE-498C-A4A3-A6183E0065B0@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a) From: Christopher Dearlove Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:31:34 +0000 To: Henning Rogge Cc: List List , "Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:31:50 -0000 The point is of course once you have the tool, you can use it in various way= s, Henning has mentioned two, no doubt others can find more. Of course if yo= u have a use, WG discussion on whether this draft supports it, or supports i= t well, is what this is all about. And as a reminder, the aim here at this time is experimental. --=20 Christopher Dearlove christopher.dearlove@gmail.com (iPhone) chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk (home) > On 30 Jan 2014, at 07:42, Henning Rogge wrote: >=20 > I say we should adopt this document as a WG doc, multitopology routing > without the need of multiple completely independent OLSRv2 instances > is one of the missing features of the protocol. >=20 > As I discussed with Christopher in Berlin we at Fraunhofer FKIE see > already two applications for MTR... one is multi-metric routing (e.g. > one metric measuring airtime use, another one delay), the other one is > overlapping network partitions (let everyone participating in normal > messages, but keep "priority/secret" messages among a subgroup of > nodes you explicitly trust). >=20 > Henning Rogge >=20 > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) > wrote: >> Hello again working group participants - >>=20 >> Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked are >> usually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase: >>=20 >> If there are any significant objections to accepting this document as a W= G >> doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider lack o= f >> comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document. >>=20 >> Regards, >> Stan >>=20 >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) >> wrote: >>=20 >> Chris/Thomas, >>=20 >> My apologies for the delay. >>=20 >> Working Group, >>=20 >> What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a WG >> doc? >>=20 >> Regards, >> Stan >>=20 >>=20 >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg >> wrote: >>=20 >> Joe, Stan, >>=20 >> have you received the below email? Can you please respond? >>=20 >> Thanks >> Ulrich >>=20 >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Thomas Heide Clausen >> Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM >> Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG >> To: Christopher Dearlove >> Cc: Joe Macker , Stan Ratliff >> , Ulrich Herberg , Adrian Farrel= >> >>=20 >>=20 >> Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director, >>=20 >> First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time with >> your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be w= ith >> you in the new year. >>=20 >> I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you a b= it >> more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding this,= I >> permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of >> draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance also= >> this document forward, hopefully rapidly, towards publication as >> experimental RFC. >>=20 >> Thank you in advance for your consideration. >>=20 >> Respectfully, >>=20 >> Thomas >>=20 >> On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >> wrote: >>=20 >> Joe, Stan >>=20 >> We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which >> includes what we knew we were missing from the previous draft. >>=20 >> We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this clos= e >> to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after thos= e >> as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other >> drafts I hope). >>=20 >> In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, >>=20 >> Christopher >>=20 >> -- >> Christopher Dearlove >> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group >> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability >> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre >> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK >> Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com >>=20 >> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited >> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre= , >> Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK >> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 >>=20 >>=20 >> ******************************************************************** >> 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. >> ******************************************************************** >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From christopher.dearlove@gmail.com Thu Jan 30 01:35:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979071A03DF for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:35:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WqlntAhRVKlS for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:35:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE711A03A7 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:35:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id y10so5786676wgg.22 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:35:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=wy4DUttrd82Pl/fnPn2niVgVlFt7MimDoUv2VJLHcmY=; b=Y3VmAhwUIVMK9b76AMhZ9yHDuNGm3Js7WDb44KaSKQWNAS8sa2VZ9fU0YcUEJsMakP Y1kKeGC0IVsGHtm2UOV9OnVrC1gSzcMjKJdEsxLhhdir/oM07o8r4vsZzmODBV7zzw5M uB6uha/QT0jv/eOeQT1oW2ty7LeBRDWKcdeoWySOqvLoyt5igL4lbLg/QUGHpDiLiosr uW2cftrbRs3QLfvDs7nEa2JzQ2V664uf4Y9uyEgUytE+SJenCW5ylxcjfNrllRX2B2/e lrFYhYX5uCnB2PVWSqwr8HmwKnEFZGFbdNSLaQQUqNQbYi8f2i7etP9QC/NPpW/647RR ly4w== X-Received: by 10.180.164.174 with SMTP id yr14mr8967432wib.18.1391074547317; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:35:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.117.218] (dab-far1-h-40-7.dab.02.net. [82.132.222.194]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dd3sm11086049wjb.9.2014.01.30.01.35.31 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:35:46 -0800 (PST) References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> <6BB38E9E-715D-43BB-84F0-28D4E783E885@gmail.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346FA@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346FA@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a) From: Christopher Dearlove Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:35:13 +0000 To: "" Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:35:52 -0000 It happens at this time I'm on a train, so I'm just diverted from Edward Fre= nkel's book Love & Math. But reading the draft is always a good idea. If not= hing else, read the Introduction. I don't have it in front of me to check ho= w much background it gives, but I would expect it to do so, both in general a= nd because that's our usual style. > On 30 Jan 2014, at 07:54, wrote: >=20 > Abdussalam, >=20 >> Ok, I will read the document, but usually I like to get discussion/answer= s from >> authors on their individual drafts before reviewing it but I did quickly l= ook over it and I asked to get motivated. >=20 > So the authors have to spend time writing their draft and spend time answe= ring your questions satisfactorily before you condescend to exert effort on r= eading their draft. Despite the fact that reading is a far quicker process t= han writing. >=20 > Your time must be far, far more valuable that that of the authors. >=20 >> was not clear to me why our WG-OLSRv2 cannot do multi-topology without th= is extension >=20 > it's mentioned in the draft that you haven't read. >=20 >=20 > Lloyd Wood > http://about.me/lloydwood > ________________________________________ > From: manet [manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [abdus= salambaryun@gmail.com] > Sent: 30 January 2014 06:46 > To: Joe Macker > Cc: List List > Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG >=20 > On Thursday, January 30, 2014, Joe Macker >=20 > =46rom the ID, its seems clear that its purpose is to specify a way to est= ablish and maintain such topologies with OLSRv2 and related metrics support d= esigns. It would be great to hear from others in the WG what they think esp= ecially after they look over and read the document. >=20 > Thanks Joe. Ok, I will read the document, but usually I like to get discus= sion/answers from authors on their individual drafts before reviewing it but= I did quickly look over it and I asked to get motivated. > The purpose mentioned in the draft was not clear to me why our WG-OLSRv2 c= annot do multi-topology without this extension, so I need answer from author= s. Your above purpose does not describe why OLSRv2 is not able to do what th= is draft can. >=20 > AB > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Thu Jan 30 03:52:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10C3E1A0193 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:52:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oGII1KqKx-66 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:52:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4761A014C for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:52:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id kq14so3007771pab.31 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:52:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=3ZpC3r6Urh8yAQG6jJRJmzdn0ZX1nw7yoB8IclGxRcA=; b=lpdFxrrNJAuFZXR21Nv7aEHo8KT/heWuRnHaJkff6cgu8EUy7OVOG1ae40PPzCIyum 6ptVNCjmJ4dXYalFHZF7+kWq811Wo6gKqfQ27MbPXHUjavwePclkOVSFETsliCqUsvls t63muAUvu/GRW7AyPihwDhWqORML+BeoJylA1AHHVFi037DZorSgH6HFZSbT+F/ZqSwW vRKld1MPqeouZcM6XRtuIbPCDx+n5I9VZJ5zmXBhffgE/ELWcFJdmc4mi0P3OkIDukui dSDUD1692Z6tyPdLa676wicR/AcbfuMAglI4ho626+KA9OZsg33V+mwBX6y2VKK4HzDx T0JQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.227.104 with SMTP id rz8mr13989349pac.74.1391082750608; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:52:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.0.104 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:52:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> <6BB38E9E-715D-43BB-84F0-28D4E783E885@gmail.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346FA@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:52:30 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Christopher Dearlove Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:52:35 -0000 Thanks Chris, I never object adoptions just need to know related whys/informations, but I like discussions and answered questions, which helps my readings background. The most important time is the WG times, I opened a discussion question, and I think we needed to get a motivation to start reading/reviewing. AB On 1/30/14, Christopher Dearlove wrote: > It happens at this time I'm on a train, so I'm just diverted from Edward > Frenkel's book Love & Math. But reading the draft is always a good idea. If > nothing else, read the Introduction. I don't have it in front of me to check > how much background it gives, but I would expect it to do so, both in > general and because that's our usual style. > >> On 30 Jan 2014, at 07:54, wrote: >> >> >> So the authors have to spend time writing their draft and spend time >> answering your questions satisfactorily before you condescend to exert >> effort on reading their draft. Despite the fact that reading is a far >> quicker process than writing. >> >> Your time must be far, far more valuable that that of the authors. From christopher.dearlove@gmail.com Thu Jan 30 06:15:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59EC61A036A for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:15:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aOZ42TSkF6RV for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:15:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ea0-x232.google.com (mail-ea0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415811A0364 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:15:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ea0-f178.google.com with SMTP id a15so1702898eae.9 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:15:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=G+mBTNF77PLiNtH2P6y9ihH0GJMvFnpt+E8YJaklPhE=; b=rXD2fQRZVLySpHv9jCvXqDQfWC6dKBDKYZJczz04C7CXYgfToM12PxPTAKJzb47Snv 8mSJexFO4rElzf0b+B/b6XazUmB75avcXSav93+v4If3GfuUFhK3LpYiwHPR6pSpRhzs nzPUUPqXV3TcBAVqzGu1H8p75KK5o85t7ks8Ld5pfm0YXk8cTlc7DeWsBRO4CGoFvE7L 4ni8kZEX04WWHN2SXIGlr0tLj+cnw451i1irhUY7dKd5t8rC03rGQsrFKtmxK3C/XHpZ UMz5sMiHRjvL5cMnijHqp4secgYbWW4Mp8j497XyTXZDKeHE4RiNdCX/rGMD0Nel0LQ4 SCPw== X-Received: by 10.14.32.67 with SMTP id n43mr17587671eea.17.1391091300593; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:15:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.9.248.199] (dab-rcn1-h-25-6.dab.02.net. [82.132.246.90]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b41sm23002867eef.16.2014.01.30.06.14.51 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:14:59 -0800 (PST) References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> <6BB38E9E-715D-43BB-84F0-28D4E783E885@gmail.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346FA@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <93D409DE-AAA9-40F1-BEFC-5C73993EE8B7@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a) From: Christopher Dearlove Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:14:49 +0000 To: Abdussalam Baryun Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:15:06 -0000 It's not actually up to me to motivate you, I'm not your supervisor. --=20 Christopher Dearlove christopher.dearlove@gmail.com (iPhone) chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk (home) > On 30 Jan 2014, at 11:52, Abdussalam Baryun w= rote: >=20 > Thanks Chris, I never object adoptions just need to know related > whys/informations, but I like discussions and answered questions, > which helps my readings background. The most important time is the WG > times, I opened a discussion question, and I think we needed to get a > motivation to start reading/reviewing. >=20 > AB >=20 >> On 1/30/14, Christopher Dearlove wrote: >> It happens at this time I'm on a train, so I'm just diverted from Edward >> Frenkel's book Love & Math. But reading the draft is always a good idea. I= f >> nothing else, read the Introduction. I don't have it in front of me to ch= eck >> how much background it gives, but I would expect it to do so, both in >> general and because that's our usual style. >>=20 >>> On 30 Jan 2014, at 07:54, wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> So the authors have to spend time writing their draft and spend time >>> answering your questions satisfactorily before you condescend to exert >>> effort on reading their draft. Despite the fact that reading is a far >>> quicker process than writing. >>>=20 >>> Your time must be far, far more valuable that that of the authors. From sratliff@cisco.com Thu Jan 30 07:10:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8E31A0399 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:10:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lnw7cIS0N30a for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:10:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239681A0420 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:10:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5136; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391094647; x=1392304247; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=RDx/SdR9fKI/B52VmVc1yKX14jZagtG/+aAeeax06Y0=; b=NdNUkvVANE/gQuYxK7OHFmYL/mB4CfNrKPipvblNe1IrtVHWYzNgWIJN /68125X+kfoTqXEr86Jd9Ii//jcB9qkn2J+D1m1yUwTUNdTr9tlOIMNoh mdjU3NUiAb1xfMd7+d7sCTAOFjNQWx1QMRLEKYMSKD+GGaywTFHnX58mP s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAKFq6lKtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABZgww4V70lgQkWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQEkLhkLBQsCAQgOAwMBAgEuIQYLHQgCBA4Fh3EDCQgNwlANiRwXjGyBNAoHAR0IKwcGgx6BFASJEY0rgWyMXoVBgy2BaAkXIg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,750,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="300767273" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2014 15:10:46 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0UFAkgF013987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:10:46 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.14]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:10:46 -0600 From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" To: Henning Rogge Thread-Topic: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG Thread-Index: Ac79nZI7Ef01aagnSm2nN57hxsYlKQao5nyAAT+TGQAAABbNgAACBdAAAB5N2AAAD6bGgA== Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:10:45 +0000 Message-ID: <2C15F599-C580-49DC-B9C4-85EDAECCC030@cisco.com> References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.102.41.133] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <36B14B1147C1464D9B43A6D1D09BE6A7@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: List List Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:10:54 -0000 Speaking as a working group participant, I support making the document a wo= rking group document. Regards, Stan On Jan 30, 2014, at 2:42 AM, Henning Rogge wrote: > I say we should adopt this document as a WG doc, multitopology routing > without the need of multiple completely independent OLSRv2 instances > is one of the missing features of the protocol. >=20 > As I discussed with Christopher in Berlin we at Fraunhofer FKIE see > already two applications for MTR... one is multi-metric routing (e.g. > one metric measuring airtime use, another one delay), the other one is > overlapping network partitions (let everyone participating in normal > messages, but keep "priority/secret" messages among a subgroup of > nodes you explicitly trust). >=20 > Henning Rogge >=20 > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) > wrote: >> Hello again working group participants - >>=20 >> Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked are >> usually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase: >>=20 >> If there are any significant objections to accepting this document as a = WG >> doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider lack= of >> comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document. >>=20 >> Regards, >> Stan >>=20 >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) >> wrote: >>=20 >> Chris/Thomas, >>=20 >> My apologies for the delay. >>=20 >> Working Group, >>=20 >> What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as a WG >> doc? >>=20 >> Regards, >> Stan >>=20 >>=20 >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg >> wrote: >>=20 >> Joe, Stan, >>=20 >> have you received the below email? Can you please respond? >>=20 >> Thanks >> Ulrich >>=20 >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Thomas Heide Clausen >> Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM >> Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG >> To: Christopher Dearlove >> Cc: Joe Macker , Stan Ratliff >> , Ulrich Herberg , Adrian Farre= l >> >>=20 >>=20 >> Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director, >>=20 >> First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time with >> your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may be = with >> you in the new year. >>=20 >> I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to you a = bit >> more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding this= , I >> permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of >> draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance als= o >> this document forward, hopefully rapidly, towards publication as >> experimental RFC. >>=20 >> Thank you in advance for your consideration. >>=20 >> Respectfully, >>=20 >> Thomas >>=20 >> On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >> wrote: >>=20 >> Joe, Stan >>=20 >> We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, which >> includes what we knew we were missing from the previous draft. >>=20 >> We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this clo= se >> to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after tho= se >> as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on other >> drafts I hope). >>=20 >> In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, >>=20 >> Christopher >>=20 >> -- >> Christopher Dearlove >> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group >> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability >> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre >> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK >> Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com >>=20 >> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited >> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centr= e, >> Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK >> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 >>=20 >>=20 >> ******************************************************************** >> 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. >> ******************************************************************** >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>=20 From jpmacker@gmail.com Thu Jan 30 08:15:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F50D1A03D4 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:15:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id albhno9HhcVX for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:15:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417A51A03A6 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:15:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f11so4659601qae.35 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:15:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2f1txxeqKXTeiQyb+vWbVeWoJUjm2PlwjvXg67/lCko=; b=TSE2D9qMFegdwZmxsjcHXwIUs5LeI721BYmbF1/hKjd2hkXP9YIYdRmfAO0ow/uoNb MPAXYggcpxu8F+wMEKlIWuYk8CJ9y11WI6JyWSLC2GvCDNlTMv7PHzvOe40boc2AOUEq fEaCiyjN3JahX6OmGcJE+Kp1j+BR5LqYihDKJYBCAFYDBNCrnpcv0Y92TGvLuToq8qXH R8uowr5eAgGszclOTxWNxc82EvbKwVejEgho2qkIZHGyztu89I0QDVsih8+N24LtUQQx aEWOJdoNVc+3BO7VpzxSB/NauoO13U/3wnOStk+eIDWs8YrLHVxxVDZRTT2ZipfhA713 CVKQ== X-Received: by 10.140.48.172 with SMTP id o41mr22085552qga.16.1391098520775; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:15:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from aes048123.nrl.navy.mil (aes048123.nrl.navy.mil. [132.250.48.123]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 30sm9262179qgt.4.2014.01.30.08.15.19 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:15:20 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Joe Macker In-Reply-To: <2C15F599-C580-49DC-B9C4-85EDAECCC030@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:15:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6DEE19BB-9870-42CC-AEE2-24E2F58FCF1D@thomasclausen.org> <46C12FA8-EDDF-45F1-819A-017E9D7F9B3E@cisco.com> <514471C2-F710-4EBB-9AFB-9B44FD1189D1@cisco.com> <2C15F599-C580-49DC-B9C4-85EDAECCC030@cisco.com> To: List List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: Re: [manet] draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:15:26 -0000 I also as a WG member support adoption. -Joe On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:10 AM, "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" = wrote: > Speaking as a working group participant, I support making the document = a working group document. >=20 > Regards, > Stan >=20 >=20 > On Jan 30, 2014, at 2:42 AM, Henning Rogge wrote: >=20 >> I say we should adopt this document as a WG doc, multitopology = routing >> without the need of multiple completely independent OLSRv2 instances >> is one of the missing features of the protocol. >>=20 >> As I discussed with Christopher in Berlin we at Fraunhofer FKIE see >> already two applications for MTR... one is multi-metric routing (e.g. >> one metric measuring airtime use, another one delay), the other one = is >> overlapping network partitions (let everyone participating in normal >> messages, but keep "priority/secret" messages among a subgroup of >> nodes you explicitly trust). >>=20 >> Henning Rogge >>=20 >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) >> wrote: >>> Hello again working group participants - >>>=20 >>> Ulrich reminds me that open-ended questions such as the one I asked = are >>> usually not a good idea. Therefore, I'll rephrase: >>>=20 >>> If there are any significant objections to accepting this document = as a WG >>> doc, please post to the list by Feb. 7. Otherwise, we will consider = lack of >>> comment as acceptance, and make the draft a WG document. >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> Stan >>>=20 >>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) = >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>> Chris/Thomas, >>>=20 >>> My apologies for the delay. >>>=20 >>> Working Group, >>>=20 >>> What say you? Do we have consensus to proceed with this document as = a WG >>> doc? >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> Stan >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Ulrich Herberg >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>> Joe, Stan, >>>=20 >>> have you received the below email? Can you please respond? >>>=20 >>> Thanks >>> Ulrich >>>=20 >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Thomas Heide Clausen >>> Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:44 PM >>> Subject: Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02 -> WG >>> To: Christopher Dearlove >>> Cc: Joe Macker , Stan Ratliff >>> , Ulrich Herberg , Adrian = Farrel >>> >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Dear WG chairs, WG secretary, Area Director, >>>=20 >>> First, happy new year. I hope that you were able to spend some time = with >>> your loved ones over the holidays, and that health and happiness may = be with >>> you in the new year. >>>=20 >>> I wanted to remind you of the request from Chris (below), sent to = you a bit >>> more than a month ago. As I've seen no emails from you to regarding = this, I >>> permit myself to reiterate the request for WG adoption of >>> draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopolgy-02 - so that we may advance = also >>> this document forward, hopefully rapidly, towards publication as >>> experimental RFC. >>>=20 >>> Thank you in advance for your consideration. >>>=20 >>> Respectfully, >>>=20 >>> Thomas >>>=20 >>> On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:07 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>> Joe, Stan >>>=20 >>> We have submitted draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02, = which >>> includes what we knew we were missing from the previous draft. >>>=20 >>> We would therefore like to ask the WG to accept this. Obviously this = close >>> to the Christmas/New Year holiday, after those (as immediately after = those >>> as possible) would be appropriate. (Same timeframe as IETF LC on = other >>> drafts I hope). >>>=20 >>> In the meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, >>>=20 >>> Christopher >>>=20 >>> -- >>> Christopher Dearlove >>> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group >>> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability >>> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre >>> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK >>> Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 >>> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com >>>=20 >>> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited >>> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace = Centre, >>> Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK >>> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> ******************************************************************** >>> 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. >>> ******************************************************************** >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> manet mailing list >>> manet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> manet mailing list >>> manet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet