IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] [SPF:fail] RE: uncompressed form

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 27 May 2019 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 5CCCB12012E for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 May 2019 18:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hE48DXLJqfMX for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 May 2019 18:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A199B120104 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 May 2019 18:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF2D3808A; Sun, 26 May 2019 21:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 80252D91; Sun, 26 May 2019 21:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB74B93; Sun, 26 May 2019 21:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Lijo Thomas <lijo@cdac.in>, 6lo@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <000001d51169$ac4048b0$04c0da10$@cdac.in>
References: <MN2PR11MB35653193798C9BA9DD1525A7D8010@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CADnDZ8_aBKp0yH22K0HiRPPZUrjcqJ2vezKpXjdd+tGwMvobpA@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB35580DE13386308CD7B2698ED8010@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <000001d51169$ac4048b0$04c0da10$@cdac.in>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 21:19:29 -0400
Message-ID: <6081.1558919969@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/HJdfrZ6Zte-zP9aRTLiCI4djMU0>
Subject: Re: [6lo] [SPF:fail] RE: uncompressed form
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: Mon, 27 May 2019 01:19:33 -0000

Lijo Thomas <lijo@cdac.in> wrote:
    > We agree your point that once the packet leaves the RPL network, then the
    > deadline information has to be carried in hop-by-hop header. In fact we
    > mentioned required text for calculating deadline time, while traversing
    > through different time zones.

Sorry to pick nits, but it's about whether the packet leaves an RPL network.
RPL runs across a multitude of layer-2s!
It's when it leaves an RFC8138 compressed LLN!

The difference in terminology leads to a difference in thinking.

    Pascal> Also we always claimed that RFC8138 is an encoding and that we can
    Pascal> always turn a packet to uncompressed and back. Deadline creates an
    Pascal> exception to that rule, which changes RFC 8138 into a sub IP protocol as
    Pascal> opposed to a compression.

To emphasize Pascal's point, and for many people who were not at the IETF
back in 2003, "subIP" was an entire area like Routing and Internet, which
addressed/created things like MPLS, ATM adaption layers, etc.   That's what
we are trying to avoid, because it has political and process issues.

    Pascal> All in all, I think that an IPv6 header (e.g., a new option in a
    Pascal> hop-by-hop header) should be provided, even if for now it appears to be
    Pascal> for completeness only.

I haven't read the deadline draft at this point, so I don't know if a new hop
by hop header makes sense, but it sounds right.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email