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
tion-guidelines. This document is being adopted by the DHC WG and is critic=
al to follow.

2. While it may cost a few octets, I would strongly encourage you to use se=
parate 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 impl=
ementation in some servers (or require 'manual' encoding). If it is critica=
l 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 specif=
y 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, se=
ction 17 (there should be no IMPLICIT or EXPLICIT ordering with multiple op=

5. You might document the possible length of the options as there seems to =
be only two choices - X and X+16 (if C=3D1). Is C even necessary? Could the=
 option length (i.e., if MPL domain address is present) be used to determin=
e this? (It avoids having to test the length if C=3D1 to make sure it is co=

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 Y=
usuke DOI
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 4:12 AM
Subject: [dhcwg] Fwd: [Roll] Request for Review: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-doi=

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 an=
other 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:=20
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 o=
ption. 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 config=
uration of MPL parameters is one of missing pieces for manageable large sca=
le 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 director=

	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 submissio=
n 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