IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 10:02 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 922C312EC80 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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
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 zHChzLRiP59l for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C795126C7B for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9382; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492682520; x=1493892120; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=qTduznr976d4k+Kh9dUJaGP+cXKOXdqXrRTm57vI9v0=; b=HupG2OfGh25LoGY56uDZwMN1XSVtMBGI/uS+7n1tDyxAb/kqKvI16weD 2HTiu7Hr0UAZ0v//QrDiwofiVENsptzjhNemGZyJsE4nL4XdNrgAd7mCG RmuniQHXpOCKvhBeUmPwkTZHxtdxyPhh0p+mfhaYZi9s5w+9Kod71FnHe U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AqAQCDhvhY/5RdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm5mYYELB4NgihWRY5AuhTWCD4YkAhqDXj8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQEBAQEDIwpMEAIBCBEEAQEoAwICAjAUCQgCBA4FCIoUqkGCJoshAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYZThHaFDYJQgl8FnTQBknmRXpQTAR84SzpjFYcpdYghgQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,225,1488844800"; d="scan'208,217";a="235204648"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Apr 2017 10:01:59 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3KA1x7I011616 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:01:59 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:01:58 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:01:58 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
CC: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis
Thread-Index: AQHSubwiWHolHsHaNE+4D4LSYGcLkqHOBSig
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:00:43 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:57:18 +0000
Message-ID: <a405d7b4aab24c6f95de26e1b7a3876b@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <0d33195c-d828-1d5b-6a49-ca23d9d4a793@sonic.net> <CY1PR03MB22654E9D09DC4384A74D9188A3350@CY1PR03MB2265.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CFC7EFC7-BD75-43DC-A61C-FF7ABD7337A3@ericsson.com> <e8161f19-4be2-1f7b-99e3-785a515accbd@innovationslab.net> <a37ba07e66b84179b65588d8c1f7380e@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr2KxYk+3BjUg9CjWtzU0P97bJT=P39iMHfA_zV_4awKNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2KxYk+3BjUg9CjWtzU0P97bJT=P39iMHfA_zV_4awKNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.30]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a405d7b4aab24c6f95de26e1b7a3876bXCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/Zh7TeVLCCMq0JN6LREfSpWdS-0Q>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:08 -0000

Hello Lorenzo:

Say the user registers, say, unspecified, is “Address topologically incorrect” the right thing?
I can add that code, but how do you return that the requester asks for pure garbage?

Take care,

Pascal

From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com]
Sent: jeudi 20 avril 2017 11:55
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>; Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>; Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>; 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote:
I also removed the administrative rejection, the return codes are now as follows:
[...]
   |   8   | Invalid Registered Address: The address being registered  |
   |       | is not usable on this link, e.g. it is not topologically  |
   |       | correct                                                   |

As worded, it's not clear to me how this option is substantially different from the administrative rejection option. Could it be scoped more tightly, e.g., renamed to "Address topologically incorrect"?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email