Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-07-08
Requested 2019-06-21
Authors Bow-Nan Cheng , Lou Berger
I-D last updated 2019-06-26
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Leif Johansson (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Michael Scharf (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2019-06-26
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2019-06-26
IETF LC End Date: 2019-07-08
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: A very simple well written document ready for publication except for
one nit and one question.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

      A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
      delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is
      transmitted over the link.

SB> That is a range 0..58000 years. I wonder if it would have been
SB> useful to have used ns at a cost of limiting the range to
SB> only 0..58 years?


Nits/editorial comments:

                      DLEP Latency Range Extension


   This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol to provide
   the range of latency that may be experienced on a link.

SB> I am not sure what the policy WRT to RFC titles is, but DLEP is
SB> not well known and should be expanded in the abstract.