[6lo] Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-18: (with COMMENT)
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 15 May 2024 15:57 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 5197EC1840EC; Wed, 15 May 2024 08:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z5IwRGI7iG4e; Wed, 15 May 2024 08:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62c.google.com (mail-ej1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D9DEC14F6A7; Wed, 15 May 2024 08:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a597394af62so41587866b.3; Wed, 15 May 2024 08:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1715788665; x=1716393465; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IPOaJp9lvt7dao9Fs8DY6vuYOxVp1Fdk1KqbO4pV67k=; b=axWsh3lFat9CBTEyCgHqUH+bfUH3ZiWnXdfv15X/zkZKlnep6l4olW0DLhMNyjMop2 sypIo2OXnmt+CatBSSvMWjxEcyoaB+BrPZOEuhPnXD5uwqfLULz3aBLBIydvzoAZB7aK 2bo+ShBaNf5w7lLGpoBgLqCel5liqTTXfBQvx7rWr2grb97I33fmEMMT4ZEXAgxKlTyv 3VS4egJ2/E95sUQS6gn+QdwMr0mQ9XnKN8ZSnhuH60rTjRNoUxzV3+TquWVRMPbWtjm1 iuKd68OpzDuZefARHs6qE5v8hFiAsRiH0YHXd1SI1eSMPnj+bWgSUMYEw8M9vGGOAM99 CgBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1715788665; x=1716393465; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=IPOaJp9lvt7dao9Fs8DY6vuYOxVp1Fdk1KqbO4pV67k=; b=PqkR4BXeAGjGm8rM4zhc5LibCFxlvT21IpaNEQAQ8LE2MrgQX5a1r5Nck+u8GGUE9N L9ojH3nOj//x9q8dMRx4ogAk6l30KtWlIImNbROz4BX5aQEBWEplvwiz1gqZfWiIG0UD U4zNK/sFH1u4hfg1mPhX98US/i+FuaZ7Lw3+//VTyy6SQAPLoshWGvVRHwE+cxtNYa0H 7MoCJyDECjQZszUo5lNLjRK9fA1X2EsNjViByqeoFM6B8+3oXBx02ERSgDCNhlSfOfQC jMaiT4a57bSV/JGHZ6Smne0TGl2xEdQc25rVQq2FHJoZlVK9E2fDToFfAaYqn+CVPhly 3+fA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUtAUydAJdD6WWJyK2mHz8OKuL8uqXFOFufyyIb6TppFzqyvcBtFnAozTPLCql5BVcMlLhVG7AH3yD1k7zmtgqoML/91sBxVs9UGM8by5MgjSbafGPUiizNpI/vF9K1qx11j0xjpS81cZFFj72FIkq68/I3+L2GWynv3WWFSYoZEss=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxdopD4Ib46gbc1w2UFsQizudHSMX+R3CaAGFl/1Sh4RQtRD7oZ GsVVncqcO2cCg/FpCeOh6b3Zhztrm06Zsaopqd+XmqXAsQySskuSisRktGI+dmLEYGuM0MJov7C K2KkyAlSt92wF9FonYZQW/E/sudc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFOxwAgWK7U11A8BQ/S6iS3cD3X666kfhBYKnNyMLrVnOKVmF+p5r9ydTMUYRf4vqGCUBi1bvkrQFh/lZVZV4w=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:986:b0:a59:cb29:3fa7 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a5a2d54d0cemr1295008566b.1.1715788665138; Wed, 15 May 2024 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <171463230116.5883.13672349909013757474@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADPqcJLFtUm2sbt-qViWJEP8mLbHSAxS-BWZDt_bxBtnZFOAnw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADPqcJLFtUm2sbt-qViWJEP8mLbHSAxS-BWZDt_bxBtnZFOAnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 09:57:32 -0600
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbxbOMAMXtO+xCtSf_gzNUQqcBhVjwY8p2ipUPbe6sxnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pascal Thubert <pascal.thubert@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e532ef0618802db5"
Message-ID-Hash: PK2UIT4ABIMOP3QP2B3VRWKWE6OZYVYJ
X-Message-ID-Hash: PK2UIT4ABIMOP3QP2B3VRWKWE6OZYVYJ
X-MailFrom: superuser@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-6lo.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration@ietf.org, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org, shwetha.bhandari@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [6lo] Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-18: (with COMMENT)
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/ERHs4lPElPt4wk2Zphsci9Ngqtg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:6lo-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:6lo-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:6lo-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Pascal, Yes, this looks much better to me. Thanks! -MSK On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 2:16 AM Pascal Thubert <pascal.thubert@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Murray > > Many thanks for your review! > > I'd rather keep that SHOULD and explain what happens when that is not done > (network takes time to recover, packets are lost). Rationale: In a very low > power LLN, the 6LN may be sleeping for a long time and will miss the async > messages anyway, so sending them could be a pure energy waste in some > environments. To your point also I made the all nodes multicast a MUST > since I'm not aware of any standard work that would create a mcast group > for all 6LNs attached to this 6LR. SHould that happen, the MUST will be > overruled by that newer standard. > > I got some parallel feedback on the clarity of the operation in that > section. I rewrote is a bit to be more specific. Net net: > > before > " > > A device that wishes to refresh its state, e.g., upon reboot if it > may have lost some registration state, SHOULD send an asynchronous > NA(EARO) with this new status value. That asynchronous multicast > NA(EARO) SHOULD be sent to the all-nodes link scope multicast > address (ff02::1) and Target MUST be set to the link local address > that was exposed previously by this node to accept registrations. > > The TID field in the multicast NA(EARO) is the one associated to > the Target and follows the same rules as the TID in the NS(EARO) > for the same Target, see section 5.2 of [RFC8505]. It is > incremented by the sender each time it sends a new series of NS > and/or NA with the EARO about the Target. By default the TID > initial setting is 252. The TID indicates a reboot when it is in > the "straight" part of the lollipop, between the initial value and > 255. After that the TID remains below 128 as long as the device > is alive. An asynchronous multicast NA(EARO) with a TID below 128 > MUST NOT be considered as indicating a reboot. > > In an unreliable environment, the asynchronous multicast NA(EARO) > message MAY be resent in a fast sequence for reliability, in which > case the TID MUST be incremented each time. If the sender is a > 6LN that also registers the Target to one or more 6LR(s), then it > MUST reregister before the current value of the TID and the last > registered value are no more comparable, see section 7.2 of > [RFC6550]. > > The multicast NA(EARO) SHOULD be resent enough times for the TID > to be issued with the value of 255 so the next NA(EARO) after the > initial series is outside the lollipop and not confused with a > reboot. A 6LN that has recently processed the multicast NA(EARO) > indicating "Registration Refresh Request" ignores the next > multicast NA(EARO) with the same status and a newer TID received > within the duration of the initial series. > > By default, the duration of the initial series is 10 seconds, the > interval between retries is 1 second, and the number of retries is > 3. The best values for the duration, the number of retries and > the TID initial setting depend on the environment and SHOULD be > configurable. > > " > > after: > " > A router that wishes to refresh its state, e.g., upon reboot or > in > any situation where it may have missed a registration or lost a > registration state, SHOULD send an asynchronous NA(EARO) with this > new status value. Failure to do so will delay the recovery of the > network till the next periodic registration by the attached 6LNs > and packets may be lost till then. That asynchronous multicast > NA(EARO) MUST be sent to the all-nodes link scope multicast > address (ff02::1) and Target MUST be set to the link local address > that was exposed previously by this node to accept registrations. > > The TID field in the multicast NA(EARO) is the one associated to > the Target and follows the same rules as the TID in the NS(EARO) > for the same Target, see section 5.2 of [RFC8505]. It is > incremented by the sender each time it sends a new series of NS > and/or NA with the EARO about the Target. The TID indicates a > reboot when it is in the "straight" part of the lollipop, between > the initial value and 255. After that the TID remains below 128 > as long as the device is alive. An asynchronous multicast > NA(EARO) with a TID below 128 MUST NOT be considered as indicating > a reboot. > > The asynchronous multicast NA(EARO) indicating a "Registration > Refresh Request" MAY be reissued a few times within a short > period, to increase the chances that the message is received by > all registered nodes despite the unreliable transmissions within > the LLN; the TID MUST be incremented each time. The receiver 6LN > MUST consider that multiple NA(EARO) messages indicating a > "Registration Refresh Request" from the same 6LR received within > that short period with comparable (their absolute difference is > less than SEQUENCE_WINDOW, see section 7.2 of [RFC6550]) and > increasing TID values are in fact indicative of the same request; > the 6LN MUST process one and only one of the series of messages. > If the TIDs are desynchronized (not comparable), or decreased, > then the NA(EARO) is considered as a new request and it MUST be > processed. > > The multicast NA(EARO) SHOULD be resent enough times for the TID > to be issued with the value of 255 so the next NA(EARO) after the > initial series is outside the lollipop and not confused with a > reboot. By default the TID initial setting after boot is 252, the > SEQUENCE_WINDOW is 4, the duration of the short period is 10 > seconds, the interval between retries is 1 second, and the number > of retries is 3. To reach 255 at boot time, the sender MAY either > issue at least 4 NA messages, skip a TID value, or start with a > value that is more than 252. The best values for the short > period, the number of retries, and the TID initial setting depend > on the environment and SHOULD be configurable. > " > > Works? > > Pascal > > > Le jeu. 2 mai 2024 à 08:45, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> a écrit : > >> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-18: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to >> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ >> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> In Section 7.3: >> >> A device that wishes to refresh its state, e.g., upon reboot if it >> may have lost some registration state, SHOULD send an asynchronous >> NA(EARO) with this new status value. That asynchronous multicast >> NA(EARO) SHOULD be sent to the all-nodes link scope multicast address >> (ff02::1) and Target MUST be set to the link local address that was >> exposed previously by this node to accept registrations >> >> "SHOULD" gives me a choice. So if I want to refresh my state, but I >> don't do >> those things, has my state still been reset? I'm not sure you want SHOULD >> here, and it feels like at least one of these needs to be MUST, or you >> could >> just change "SHOULD send" to "sends" to make it normal behavior when >> wants to >> reset state. >> >> In Section 2.3, you define these terms, but never use them: 6BBR, AMC, >> AMR. >> >> >> >> > > -- > Pascal >
- [6lo] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ie… Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
- [6lo] Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draf… Pascal Thubert
- [6lo] Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draf… Murray S. Kucherawy