AB, as said to Jiazi, the text already has some recommendations of constraints for the parameters (and I will add the sentence I suggested to Jiazi). I am unsure what additional text you would like to see. Best regards Ulrich On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ulrich, > > I agree with Jiazi, that you need to provide values of parameters for > the experiment I-D, or some default recommendations. I think it is > important but your text proposed does not follow the request of > parameters values, > > AB > > On 2/11/13, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Jiazi, >> >> thank you very much for your review. I am glad that the latest >> revision addresses your previous concerns. >> >> As to your suggestion, I agree that having some constraints is useful. >> To your suggestion considering the number of routers in the DFF >> domain, I think this would be difficult to use normative language, as >> the number of routers may not be known (e.g. when not using a >> proactive routing protocol). DFF does not mandate to have this >> information at hand. >> Another example of setting the value would be to depend on the >> expected path length (e.g. based on information from the routing >> protocol). It may, e.g., be reasonable to set a MAX_HOP_LIMIT that is, >> say, 50% longer than the distance in hops indicated by a routing >> protocol. I think that it would be very interesting to find out >> appropriate values as experiments for the protocol (given that the >> document is Experimental). >> >> How about adding the following text to MAX_HOP_LIMIT: >> >> ----- added text ------ >> Finding optimal values for MAX_HOP_LIMIT is part of experiments that >> can be performed with the protocol proposed in this document. >> For example, one possible experiment would be to set MAX_HOP_LIMIT to >> different factors of the expected path length to the destination in >> number of hops if provided by a routing protocol. >> --------------------- >> >> >> >> Best regards >> Ulrich >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jiazi Yi <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I had a through review of dff-07 with detailed comments. In the new >>> revision, my questions and concerns have been properly addressed -- thanks >>> to all the authors. >>> >>> The mechanism is well documented, and I have tested the protocol in the >>> scenarios described in the applicability statement, which brings >>> interesting performance improvement. >>> >>> Therefore, I would like to encourage the publication of it. >>> >>> Just one more comment: >>> >>> o In section 8 Protocol Parameters, it would be better to have >>> some limitations or recommendations for those parameters. For P_HOLD_TIME, >>> I think it's OK by saying "at least be MAX_HOP_LIMIT times the expected >>> time to send a Packet to a router on the same link.". It would be event >>> better to give such limitations to MAX_HOP_LIMIT. A regular value related >>> to NET_DIAMETER won't work, because DFF can have significant higher hop >>> count and result in packet drop. Maybe we can have something like "it MUST >>> NOT be higher than the number of routers in the DFF routing domain. If the >>> number of routers is greater than 255, it is set to 255 by default." >>> >>> best >>> >>> Jiazi >>> >>> >>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> > draft-cardenas-dff is under consideration for publication as an >>> > AD-sponsored individual submission Experimental RFC. I agreed to >>> > sponsor it for publication because it doesn't really fit in any existing >>> > working groups and the requested publication status is Experimental. As >>> > part of the review process, the document is in a 2-week IETF last call. >>> > The last call announcement is included below. To ensure the quality of >>> > the document, it would be helpful to get reviews from manet WG >>> > participants (posted to the ietf@xxxxxxxx discussion list). >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > - Ralph >>> > >>> > >>> > ===== >>> > >>> > >>> > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to >>> > consider >>> > the following document: >>> > - 'Depth-First Forwarding in Unreliable Networks (DFF)' >>> > <draft-cardenas-dff-09.txt> as Experimental RFC >>> > >>> > 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-02-24. Exceptionally, comments may >>> > be >>> > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >>> > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>> > >>> > Abstract >>> > >>> > >>> > This document specifies the "Depth-First Forwarding" (DFF) protocol >>> > for IPv6 networks, a data forwarding mechanism that can increase >>> > reliability of data delivery in networks with dynamic topology and/or >>> > lossy links. The protocol operates entirely on the forwarding plane, >>> > but may interact with the routing plane. DFF forwards data packets >>> > using a mechanism similar to a "depth-first search" for the >>> > destination of a packet. The routing plane may be informed of >>> > failures to deliver a packet or loops. This document specifies the >>> > DFF mechanism both for IPv6 networks (as specified in RFC2460) and in >>> > addition also for LoWPAN "mesh-under" networks (as specified in >>> > RFC4944). >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > The file can be obtained via >>> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/ >>> > >>> > IESG discussion can be tracked via >>> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/ballot/ >>> > >>> > >>> > The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: >>> > >>> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1645/ >>> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1646/ >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > manet mailing list >>> > manet@xxxxxxxx >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>