Re: [6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 05 December 2019 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C4E120019 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:47:08 -0800 (PST)
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 QivbdYlCwI0j for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:47:07 -0800 (PST)
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 DA6DF120013 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:47:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBBC3897A; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:43:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB50AAAB; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:47:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Malisa Vucinic <Malisa.Vucinic@inria.fr>, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>
cc: 6tisch@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3C7830D8-59C5-4F78-8986-91391EF464D6@kuehlewind.net>
References: <157244462862.32472.6918190621522301464.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <14289.1572642938@localhost> <3C7830D8-59C5-4F78-8986-91391EF464D6@kuehlewind.net>
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 09:47:05 -0500
Message-ID: <27585.1575557225@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/8e9lf1v8GDXhmZ3DBrDKB0S2CKI>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-iet?= =?utf-8?q?f-6tisch-minimal-security-13=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:47:08 -0000

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
    >>> I would think it
    >>> either sets it to AF43 or it does nothing about it because DSCP is not
    >>> really used in that network.
    >>
    >> In 6tisch networks, different DSCP points can be used to get different
    >> behaviours, see .... UHM. Let me get back to you on this, because the
    >> reference has evaporated.

    > A reference would be good (in the draft) :-)

Hi, we had a long discussion about setting DSCP points on upward and downward
traffic.   We had said that these code point would *not* cause 6P to add bandwidth.
Where did we say that?   I feel like that the reference has gone away.

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