Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: [Roll] Request for Review: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Mon, 12 August 2013 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D4F21F995E for <>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.549
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IyKGMDM2r3xr for <>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0260921F9FD6 for <>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4932; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1376342943; x=1377552543; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=tHvLgqrCSJ/SYhibyiCSr5KjOE7J7DVvkmDPs8rjNkg=; b=HGIrFqmdknjek67og1JZmkxiuvY+kK3vTP6wfz6gtw5q9hltxnT8yhkb CwsExQrA98tEEC6HGa0ZCFZF9DpXdppHSFFzoeHwnJwL9Cxehzw4Bi/tT 43JXO/rvQekfEl+moOlggKeBqJOPs5w+qPW8yeEYmT8+0HljbE/duwrqh c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,864,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="246476446"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2013 21:29:01 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7CLT1Kd031679 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:29:01 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:29:01 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: Yusuke DOI <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Fwd: [Roll] Request for Review: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOjo7Vq7kXwbde7UCMVu7yhcark5mSJSlg
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:29:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: [Roll] Request for Review: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:29:31 -0000

<WG Chair Hat OFF>

A few comments regarding this draft:

1. Please make sure to look at This document is being adopted by the DHC WG and is critical to follow.

2. While it may cost a few octets, I would strongly encourage you to use separate fields for some items (such as C_K and DM_K). This will cost you one octet but keeps the encoding simpler (flags, C_K, and DM_K octets).

3. The new data type (Unsigned Short Floating Point) will likely delay implementation in some servers (or require 'manual' encoding). If it is critical that this be used (instead of a more traditional data type), so be it.

4. As stated in draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines, this document does specify that multiple instances are allowed (see draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-13, section 16). However, it makes no statement as to whether the order is significant and that is covered in draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-13, section 17 (there should be no IMPLICIT or EXPLICIT ordering with multiple options).

5. You might document the possible length of the options as there seems to be only two choices - X and X+16 (if C=1). Is C even necessary? Could the option length (i.e., if MPL domain address is present) be used to determine this? (It avoids having to test the length if C=1 to make sure it is correct.)

6. I can say nothing about the utility of this option and whether the data contained therein is appropriate as I am not an MPL expert - we would defer to the ROLL WG in these regards.

</WG Chair Hat OFF>

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Yusuke DOI
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 4:12 AM
Subject: [dhcwg] Fwd: [Roll] Request for Review: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt

Dear dhc folks,

Just FYI, here is a proposed individual I-D proposed to roll WG. I believe it does not make any harm to current DHCP infrastructure because this is another stateless option to distribute data among nodes. It's still in early stage and will be updated to satisfy the option guideline document.

Any feedbacks are welcome.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Roll] Request for Review: Fwd: I-D Action: 
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:08 +0900
From: Yusuke DOI <>;
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>;

Dear roll folks,

I (and Matt Gillmore) have a proposal to make MPL configuration over DHCP option. I'm on the IETF meeting so I really appriciate if anyone can take a quick review on it and/or have F2F discussion.

We're thinking of thousands of nodes under a LLNs. And we identified configuration of MPL parameters is one of missing pieces for manageable large scale LLN.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:25:09 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : MPL Parameter Configuration Option for DHCPv6
	Author(s)       : Yusuke Doi
                           Matthew Gillmore
	Filename        : draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2013-07-29

    This draft is to define a way to configure MPL parameter via DHCPv6

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

There's also a htmlized version available at:

A diff from the previous version is available at:

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

I-D-Announce mailing list
Internet-Draft directories: or

Roll mailing list

dhcwg mailing list