Re: [6lo] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-06 through July 11

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Thu, 13 July 2017 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA7D129AAD; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 23:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vZBskArutWvs; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 23:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63D5E120227; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 23:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=12195; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1499926934; x=1501136534; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=mQ0O9MFKrilvjApgEYrfipkA3XpjWUNnkAJ4oJpyF5c=; b=UW/ytyHEwzmC+l8ZCwB5inrlgqjhmYGgjmbh3Ih91dQa4VuHER6gKSEv Qpt/Gox4VDxVIlzOaIBBmKCN8xlxHIIRisLKKjnPlMvzhLVuA5kZPeC3R Mjv/YPSTarULbzC8cypdhWajohTUJ8uYpmQ/l7RiAUXr+Kai+bImvKsdE s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,352,1496102400"; d="scan'208,217";a="452569972"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jul 2017 06:22:13 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6D6MDBL029055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:22:13 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:22:12 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:22:12 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: Gabriel Montenegro <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-06 through July 11
Thread-Index: AdLvmoCPIn9d1IUORHKpl4KnCC0bkAMBG2Lg
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:22:07 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:21:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_52f9601b09dc49dca6e63f74828cebadXCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6lo] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-06 through July 11
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:22:16 -0000

Hello Gabriel :

Yes, I implicitly support the document in WGLC. I have to raise one issue about it, that we probably have been a bit too efficient in cleaning up references to RPL in the last version to prepare for this LC. As it goes, the text in section 4.2 that mandated the way the TID is computed and incremented (lollipop and all) is now all gone, since it came from a reference to RFC6550. The text would say in 05:

"                                                           The TID essentially obeys the same rules as

   the Path Sequence field in the Transit Information Option (TIO) found

   in the RPL Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) [RFC6550<>]0>].

This test is needed otherwise the 6LBR will not be able to compare 2 values of a TID and understand the intension of the sender WRT what's newer/older.

I see 2 possibilities:

-         Restore the reference, so people clearly see that the TID field is meant to contain the same value / same incrementing and wrapping rules as the RPL Path Sequence

-         Copy the text from RFC 6550 so this document is self-contained, and leave it completely to another document to describe the optimizations that can be achieved by coupling ND and RPL.

What do others think?

From: Gabriel Montenegro []
Sent: mercredi 28 juin 2017 01:10
Subject: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-06 through July 11


I just initiated a WG last call on:


The WG last call will finish on July 11.

Thanks in advance for your comments.