IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: (with COMMENT)

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 05 March 2020 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECE73A1563; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 06:23:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=ccEkHxCC; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=S+FlGxSx
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 T4WJURo7Y6vT; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 06:23:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B584C3A1560; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 06:23:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1307; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1583418221; x=1584627821; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=IqRQK07HK5X+s5FcyTnQGmZ1I3gXSDL/GzMkQ2LirNc=; b=ccEkHxCCTn0lCZ7wpXq3fEb5Hqa+6tVNbDaDIPPv7l9O/BOZABvNJYGt QIrLwjbSwxNPeVzW2lDDTNQeHXPZvoiOy3ZDN30ygdiBOfQmxih0T/3vC I83H2sqhbyylUY9NN9f7pWB3WF24vaqGpbgL6UxWtf9bnlHnh2QBRfrM8 k=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:AWRgtRYzzyegd8lI/xGlReb/LSx94ef9IxIV55w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el20gabRp3VvvRDjeee87vtX2AN+96giDgDa9QNMn1NksAKh0olCc+BB1f8KavycywnFslYSHdu/mqwNg5eH8OtL1A=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CWCACwCmFe/4kNJK1mDoIzgVQkLAWBRCAECyoKh1EDimuadIJSA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIEAQGEQwKCDiQ3Bg4CAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBQRthVYMhWQCAQMSLgEBNwEPAgEIRjIlAgQBDQ0ahU8DLgEDokECgTmIYoIngn8BAQWFHhiCDAmBOIUhhwYagUE/gRFHgk0+hE2DQYIskC2HNphCCoI8jR+JY5s0jnWbTQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaCOBWHAVgydQGA2OVYM7ihg9dIEpjEwBgQ8BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,518,1574121600"; d="scan'208";a="450816926"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 05 Mar 2020 14:23:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 025ENe2f006268 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Mar 2020 14:23:40 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:23:39 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:23:38 -0500
Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:23:38 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=jnPkMhXZgxwggEDGq9oT6pdLFzz5WN8BJT/yjLAbA16b0jd/UTJtsa0fhw435WHVZ9uXl7ufdeqpQYhRHKiQlgpWt16lpdXSb1Yrr5STAQ7YQN0uy/eK+CYxUgMH6P2PvEfczFpaQqigCAmgDZl1Uxsh9YUAOEQmSBuzutY9xCKkTWdy5BiuuQkP02NFMI/uxXSoatWIQ44CPvm/Rzg2f4c274a+UBCWeULk9sHHb7FwozdhPQmK0qUODjwQCpcCdcVgJx93oPNHDdyZcT7u0d9rvXVChXWs/doAyenEzzLwujkgkgnarLUgZUgu+xDO2TbUQ5SUFJaKll9n4ObFjA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;bh=IqRQK07HK5X+s5FcyTnQGmZ1I3gXSDL/GzMkQ2LirNc=; b=oeapks/DJFwkMZhdOjFRwUhj2dNY01zUmpTo4eym5HSKKrvD8KPp2f4V68W90yjGRSTT+uekcMPsUVvetCRk42u4i5B1M/mZxlq7aYTbu0DrVLKqLJsTMOAQjLx5+7Wwv0MVWg2ZySYXGLZ46uLkBBz0dJRmMlXnRsjKBcuHumGrhMhMslt+lRQ5aaCP/ShNg5k3Q86MvIRBVKFvW2TGXzhzrpNx4qc9w7/yZNfhHFEePOCCz1Hd7DvfkBYGOM1aAyC/WZDaaOkis3Nr+KWhMfooWi0PuS8Tf3ah0Lslo1/3jTI5rRfBiJIRpbOgr6oNFbDCa2pqdJNKv5Ko8bF6gA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IqRQK07HK5X+s5FcyTnQGmZ1I3gXSDL/GzMkQ2LirNc=; b=S+FlGxSxme4Q9kbBvXwqMSYJCNUumOp5J6V75W+BuiB59s3QiX4OaKWqDdC2HZnY9TrhtNZNbLkoPULhupUGHswODms6lAPKBdLtKFQQanTrK+M6W7Wvylbh6jdfRIlpWOhwReNWAuwoUBMjcmEwSeXmQwX/qMIQqTVU8F0tHp4=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:ea::31) by MN2PR11MB4240.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:179::12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2772.18; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 14:23:37 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::edba:2b0f:7341:2c24]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::edba:2b0f:7341:2c24%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2772.019; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 14:23:37 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>, "carlesgo@entel.upc.edu" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, "draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHV8vmYRxAgMv6FTEWmV5qFqBQzGw==
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 14:23:09 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 14:22:18 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB356597BCDAD398B43B8252DDD8E20@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <158211922582.23771.13449460445832408679.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20200220191424.GI97652@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20200220191424.GI97652@kduck.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2.15.54.55]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c2bc94ff-9a37-41d8-b059-08d7c110cb9d
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4240:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB42409979F5E813ED4D77C0EBD8E20@MN2PR11MB4240.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 03333C607F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(396003)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(199004)(189003)(316002)(81156014)(81166006)(7696005)(8936002)(33656002)(9686003)(4326008)(110136005)(54906003)(2906002)(478600001)(224303003)(186003)(6506007)(5660300002)(52536014)(26005)(86362001)(71200400001)(66476007)(6666004)(55016002)(66556008)(76116006)(66446008)(6636002)(64756008)(66946007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4240; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: S43zQxPwdLLQM+FGebJeCbhDICDx7cTCM/kMIbcJLINFSqJZTu15oG3gz9Qtl4UfsmZ1M46i996ozfy7pamaFAyfhDf9PXlKOb4kxw6CZoFw3qK/+PakVfWJjD6u9j02wqBUovmrrSljJs/bdKkHi3JhnSTeqj6bHhf3gVcP6Uj8B3BaD42VPgnQVqT/ZbNjpLT+Qhybs2RB2M5jbxlCTOhSKnk2A5249ubB95nwQrXCzdjTJ9WNqZD2yAvRTI2Tmb1BCWWxHTlDK5531COdfmhgESFi6SvLXYnUD2e8qBaoCPCtC5RcviCGO6bOh744DP8sdf1PBLVY+j4P9YZIRnvxeDXfO16mVdtXtsRwnM9acWc4LhVV5Ov3NggdW1FLotzw77BjT+wr0h2hVDZQH/ZanPVO6Fq6GWQ/+/O7+FguombjPaEJDfzCnn4TIXFJ
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: F83ES2i1e17ubtsPg+JY0LCy/Dv2CAF3PAD0seMDHvwpMn4c4piAEC/VeGIWrILb2JturSNrBOEjetIDT2RJKqSetPPMOHqmp7BXZAkUMThWHHGK3J42S1J/PMxAzsiL6qKmOzusoRiLxrmSOlu41Q==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c2bc94ff-9a37-41d8-b059-08d7c110cb9d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Mar 2020 14:23:37.5111 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: I8ySgadYCTTkO/usQArt+jasJ96ASV7N9zcG0pEtctyxKITAyAfBMSaGLGFBIO2k/cUGLFzyPFizSWK2tN4Agw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4240
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/5EwuhgfXYQAcwpw2AN1Nb31cCJQ>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 14:23:44 -0000

Hello Eric and Ben:

> > == COMMENTS ==
> >
> > Is there a reason why this document uses "Link-Layer address" while
> > the companion, draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery, uses "MAC address" ?
> > This is cosmetic of course but if the concept is the same, using the
> > same wording could only improve the readability of the documents. Same
> applies for "datagram_tag"
> > vs "Datagram_Tag" ;-)
> >
> > -- Section 5 --
> > "Multiple fragments may progress in parallel" is not really correct as
> > the rather travel "simultaneously" as they follow the same path but at
> > different steps (i.e. not like using parallel links).
> >
> > -- Section 6 --
> > The "no per-fragment routing" can also be seen as an advantage as it
> > forces all fragments to be in order.
> 
> I think that still requires cooperation from all intermediate nodes, absent some
> requirement for them to clear buffers in FIFO order.

Yes, and there is no assumption that the fragments will be in order. One could say that it does not matter. 
It does a little bit in the case of the recovery since we resend in order so we have a chance that a packet still in flight is acked before it is retried.
The thing that really matters is the first fragment first.


All the best;

Pascal

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email