Re: [Roll] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-02.txt

Thanks a bunch Brian!

Since this changes a MAY NOT in a MUST NOT, I published an 03.

The text is now:

   This specification also allows that regardless of its original
   setting, a root of a RPL domain MAY set the Flow Label of IPv6
   packets that exit the RPL domain in a manner that SHOULD conform to
   the prescriptions in [RFC6437].  Therefore a source in the RPL domain
   MUST NOT assume that its setting of the Flow Label be preserved end-
   to-end.  From there, the capability by RPL routers inside the LLN to
   alter a non-zero Flow Label between the source and the root is
   another minor deviation to [RFC6437] that is also acceptable since it
   is transparent to the core of the Internet.

Again, many thanks.

I'll follow up with the chairs about the idea of a special WGLC in 6man.

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> Sent: vendredi 16 mai 2014 03:40
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; roll; 6tisch@ietf.org; Pat Kinney
> Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-
> for-rpl-02.txt
> 
> On 13/05/2014 21:26, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > Dear all:
> >
> > This new version addresses Brian's concerns, in particular the language
> that relates this proposal with the Flow Label Specification (RFC 6437).
> > It is made clearer that this is a deviation such as already tolerated for
> security reasons, and that the compelling reason is energy saving.
> > The proposal only impacts the use of the flow label inside the LLN and
> does not result in a deterioration of the application of RFC 6437 inside the
> Internet.
> > The proposal is supported by individuals participating to LLN related
> groups at the IETF (cc'ed) and external SDOs (ISA100).
> 
> I'm happy with the new Applicability section. However, there is an editing
> problem with the first sentence of its final paragraph (some words need to
> be deleted, I suspect).
> 
> > The question is now whether we should complete the work at 6MAN or
> move back to ROLL.
> >
> > What do you think?
> 
> IMHO, since this does not formally update a 6man document, I don't think
> it's required to be processed by 6man - but a special WGLC in 6man would
> be reasonable in any case, to avoid unexpected issues at IETF Last Call.
> However, that's only one person's opinion.
> 
> Since 6man is not meeting in Toronto, please let us know if the draft will be
> discussed elsewhere.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
> > Sent: mardi 13 mai 2014 11:19
> > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> > Subject: New Version Notification for
> > draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-02.txt
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-02.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Pascal Thubert and posted to the IETF
> repository.
> >
> > Name:		draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl
> > Revision:	02
> > Title:		The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain
> > Document date:	2014-05-13
> > Group:		Individual Submission
> > Pages:		11
> > URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-6man-flow-
> label-for-rpl-02.txt
> > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-flow-
> label-for-rpl/
> > Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-
> rpl-02
> > Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-
> for-rpl-02
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    This document present how the Flow Label can be used inside a RPL
> >    domain as a replacement to the RPL option and provides rules for the
> >    root to set and reset the Flow Label when forwarding between the
> >    inside of RPL domain and the larger Internet, in both direction.
> >    This new operation saves 44 bits in each frame, and an eventual IP-
> >    in-IP encapsulation within the RPL domain that is required for all
> >    packets that reach outside of the RPL domain.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >