Re: [dhcwg] MPL config draft (Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-01.txt)

Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com> Mon, 07 July 2014 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <akostur@incognito.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B4F61A0366 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 09:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 jdu0U8aXauqE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 09:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys010aog108.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog108.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EB0281A035E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob108.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKU7rLmhaq84xC5iegTiTlBo5mv8h9CXrH@postini.com; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 09:32:27 PDT
Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id lf12so4218854vcb.32 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=uIE0TQjrG355JSj7CHdsl3SclKo/KBJ27ZttyJ0WMnc=; b=MQmkRsHubizMNyVyEPjcmqxaANR23sNtVSyjQQjAyCgQjoPw4KvIe2IdY+NRylJN1Y SljsiUqmc+aAJYcOWZudMvsfQfd94shZUR0zSRyqry9IJV76HkU6g8iijfrEJJsAGuyr uVB7aWLWaJJR9oEqDf275drA1FcSJfsBtOI3jDNgvbnyKTNZVWjmOwD00BPQFx/40qXI JUma7rwNO3RA5itfhgUySffVXzECYZmCQtOzsXg4wXjYjXLaxc8k1DcYgiexkZkD8KFK t5AXANO/Joknbjin9IAgnAaHarVT9cO0xl1byiDyTXJMyS9PoJ2HCYzwy8H64OAjMXHo cdCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnWz+Lr30y0SUw9MhRLj93Qo08CWjjf6VTzYFWRQ+p49MEIw6/RdEtwUDj2JJYcVSlvCgSZry/pofuZdHZGCVAZNPFwrt1W1LKgkuHxDAHm3KubBX/0t4u2zmFTLzaeCzoe9Txq
X-Received: by 10.58.210.168 with SMTP id mv8mr28632822vec.12.1404750745834; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.210.168 with SMTP id mv8mr28632813vec.12.1404750745730; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.147.79 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53BA92D9.3000606@toshiba.co.jp>
References: <20140701155803.14047.81610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53BA92D9.3000606@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 09:32:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL10_BqyWcb9_NBq2RzX7oX9g356ypYYDntVASX53q_D7Lrhdg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
To: Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Rw1ICTF_IoL1pot_X-zr8zATW4U
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] MPL config draft (Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-01.txt)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 16:32:29 -0000

A couple of quick thoughts (keeping in mind RFC 7227 - Guidelines for
Creating New DHCPv6 Options):

- An encoded option is frowned upon.  Split all of those into separate
options, and the "Reserved" parts simply disappear.  A "sub-optioned"
option is also frowned upon (section 9, RFC 7227).
- Why add the additional complexity of the floating point?   Why not
use a 32-bit unsigned integer representing milliseconds which gets you
a little over 40 days?  Not the 18 weeks that you currently can
represent, but is there a practical use for timers over a month long
in MPL?
- If you do go with separate options, consider what it would mean if
certain options don't exist.  ietf-roll-trickle-mcast appears to
define defaults, perhaps reference that draft to say that if an option
is missing, the client is to use the default defined in that draft?
- Speaking of RFC 7227...  I-D.ietf-dhc-option-guidelines got published in May

-- 
Andre Kostur