Re: [6lowpan] ND-17

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 16 January 2012 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1500421F8628 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:40:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.525
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.724, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3GMOvLkUEAOU for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDAC21F8627 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:40:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0GHeS25027279; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:40:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.117] (p5B3E6537.dip.t-dialin.net [91.62.101.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86B51176; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:40:28 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHoqu_pkJ9onU8k2r-3gWEbQmXJTs05zoGtzKqAazZGRxGy5OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:40:25 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <054A47D4-276D-44FB-96AD-08BD38BE6521@tzi.org>
References: <CAHoqu_oacOGQR+1MbNZJzLQjuDrQ6ZOcs=i6PiNOoF=nwsVhpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHoqu_pkJ9onU8k2r-3gWEbQmXJTs05zoGtzKqAazZGRxGy5OQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom <my.mailing.acc@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] ND-17
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:40:47 -0000

Hi Tom,

(WG chair hat off, individual WG member hat on:)

> 1) Section 5.3 demands "In all cases the RS retransmissions are terminated when a RA is received."
> Is this also applicable when a RA is received with router lifetime is set to zero (e.g a router going down as suggested in rfc4861).

Well, you could consider it to be, but because of the lifetime it then restarts right after 0 seconds…
Yes, something like this could be spelled out.

> 2) TBD4 number (155 XXX) conflicts with the one allocated for RPL. 
> Is there a other suggested value or one under common agreement outside ND-17 used for interoperability. 

The same is true for TBD1 (31) and TBD2 (32), which have been assigned in the meantime:
31      DNS Search List Option                  [RFC6106]
32      Proxy Signature (PS)                    [RFC-ietf-csi-proxy-send-05.txt]

These should be relatively painless, but 155 might hurt in interop testing.
Good question, I'll defer to the interop testing community.

> 3) Believe there is a typo here? (page 49, section 12)
> o TBD3 = 33
> o TBD4 = 155 XXX
> o TBD3 = 156 XXX -> Believe this is a typo. 

Yes, this is a typo; this should be TBD5.

The numbering of course will be solved once we have actual IANA assignments.
Depending on when the spec approval happens, 33 and 156 may also go to other protocols in the meantime.

I believe we could go for an RFC4020 style early allocation if this uncertainty creates hardships.

Two other observations:
-- we are at ND-18 already.  Please always use the most recent I-D, available at:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd

(and now finally with WG chair hat:)

-- please indicate your name on your mailing list messages (I'm assuming that Tom is not your only name, which of course could be the case in several locales).

Grüße, Carsten