Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2016, at 6:52 PM, Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In line...
On 4 Apr 2016 18:37, "Ratliff, Stanley" <sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Victoria Mercieca
<vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi all,
On 4 Apr 2016 18:08, "Stan Ratliff"
<ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2016, at 5:34 PM, John Dowdell
<john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Yes, post to show progress :)
OK looking at some TODOs now
1. The ones in the definitions; is it worth linking from the definition
to where the explanatory text is?
2. Applicability statement. Sigh. Wireless networks. We discussed
keeping that rabbit hole shut, and I’d rather not open it again. Yes it
is very likely that AODVv2 will be used on wireless networks, but given
that a very high proportion of mesh and point to point wireless
networks operate some proprietary or closed standard protocol (apart
from the usual 802.11 and .15 ones), I’d really rather not get into a
protracted discussion of what could and could not be done here.
3. Page 9: yes there is an issue with hop-by-hop trust. Correct. Does
anyone know how to fix that yet? No. We kicked it around again in DTN
this morning and still no nearer a workable solution. IMO best left as
an exercise for the reader, or text to that effect. If I was building
such a network today, I would probably pre-load key material into each
node with a lifetime of the mission plus a bit, maybe with a spare set
of keys in case of compromise. In the future when technology has moved
on to be able to properly negotiate trust without reference to a
central PKI server, I would do something fancier.
4. Page 17, maximum single hop metric value. The current IETF favourite
appears to be two bytes worth, think this is the same in DLEP (Stan can
you confirm please?). Can we go with that?
DLEP tends to go with 8-octet data items. We followed the notion that if
you make everything as big as possible ( a long long), then nobody will
ask you to make it larger... ;-)
But in this application, I'd think 2 bytes is sufficient.
That comment was where we said a route has a maximum cost metric allowed,
and Justin said to consider adding a maximum cost per link.
Since we only defined hopcount...
Section 11.6. MetricType Allocation says that the hopcount metric value
uses 1 octet, hence why the maximum route metric allowed is 255. For
hopcount obviously the maximum single hop cost is 1.
The maximum route cost for other metric types depends on the number of
octets used to represent that metric. We don't have any defined yet. Are
you saying that when these metrics are defined, their values should be
limited to 2 bytes? Also (what i think Justin meant) is it also useful to
define a maximum link metric?
For route cost, I'd go with a 32-but value. But I'm also convinced anything
we pick will be deemed to be wrong... ;-) So let's pick 32 bits and "get
corrected". At least we'll get it over with.
Max link metric? Don't know. I'll defer to you.
So in messages when we report the accumulated metric, the field in the TLV
should have length of 32 bits? There's no point in having the table in 11.6
define the number of bytes used to represent the value of each metric type.
Kind regards,
Vicky.
Stan
Kind regards,
Vicky.
Stan
5. RREP_Ack timeout. I’d expect to get an Ack back pretty quickly since
it’s only coming from one hop away. Is there a short time value we can
re-use from somewhere else in this spec?
6. Check RREP_Ack in MRMT. Why isn’t this the right place, thought this
was now the working space for routes before they go live into the
kernel?
7. (What does this mean? How would one determine a link to a neighbor
to be broken….suggest removing it JWD TODO) need some clarification.
We do discuss how to detect links are broken, and what is it that he is
asking to be removed?
8. Page 24 sect 6.6 the table for waiting routes is the MRMT, is it not?
That’s all for now. Lotte, you are owed a very significant number of
beers.
Cheers
John
On 4 Apr 2016, at 20:59, Ratliff, Stanley
<sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Go!
Regards,
Stan
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>>
wrote:
Hi all,
since we're allowed to submit Drafts again now (I think) and we
decided to publish asap, I thought I'd give you a quick status update
and wait for your Go/"Wait a minute, let's fix this first" signals.
DONE:
----
* All JWD!s are resolved now
* out of 90 JWD and JWD! comments, 64 are done (I've attached my copy
of Justin's review if you want to look for the remaining 26 TODOs,
it's the file called "draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 (2).txt")
* added revised security considerations
TO DO:
----
* Most notable of the 26 JWDs that are yet to be resolved:
+ (is there some table that lists routes that are being waited on?
JWD) We decided to add a separate
RREP table that lists them and I've volunteered to write text
for that, but every time I set out to do that,
I got more confused... I'm starting to worry about the amount
of tables AODVv2 needs by now, and
I've been picking Vickys brain on how to achieve storing that
info without having to add another table,
but it's an ongoing process.
+ the approaching the limit thing we're currently discussing in
"[aodvv2-discuss] Re: Justin's review"
* some TODOs in security considerations (see github)
* still waiting for Chris' feedback regarding the revised 5444
multiplexer wording, so that hasn't changed yet
* Make it more clear that AODVv2 currently doesn't support RREQs for
prefixes to make Thomas happy (I'm planning to do that tomorrow
afternoon)
What do you think?
Regards,
Lotte
<draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 (2).txt>
<draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-14d-from-c.diff.html>
<draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-14d.txt>
_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the
individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________
