[dhcwg] Review Request (Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-00.txt)

Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp> Fri, 14 March 2014 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
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 29ECE1A048E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.939
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 eWAueu4EojyK for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imx12.toshiba.co.jp (imx12.toshiba.co.jp [61.202.160.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586F61A068F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from arc11.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.90.127]) by imx12.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id s2E034wn023290 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:03:04 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by arc11.toshiba.co.jp id s2E034ZW017829 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:03:04 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ovp11.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.90.148] by arc11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id KAA17828; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:03:04 +0900
Received: from mx12.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id s2E034PH005477 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:03:04 +0900 (JST)
Received: from spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id s2E0332T004999; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:03:04 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [133.196.16.135] (ncg-dhcp135.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp [133.196.16.135]) by spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5A6A97D96; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:03:03 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <53224737.7090109@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:03:03 +0900
From: Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <20140313143942.7850.75117.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140313143942.7850.75117.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20140313143942.7850.75117.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/qJid8HJq_2y0h09e4OIRXJ_Be90
Cc: Matthew.Gillmore@itron.com
Subject: [dhcwg] Review Request (Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-00.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: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:03:16 -0000

Dear DHC folks,

I'm proposing an DHCPv6 option for configuration of MPL parameters that are (typically) used in wireless mesh networks.

The I-D is just adopted as roll WG draft. May I ask the dhc wg (again) to take a look on it?

I need to apologize I failed to follow a Bernie's suggestion given at last August.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg14587.html

> 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).

I tried to follow the comment, and at the same time, I think it should be aligned with word boundary, *and*, it should be compact as possible because it's intended to be used in wireless mesh networks (I feel too nervous if I waste 24 bits of all of the DHCP responses on the all mesh networks of ours). This results following awkward format. I personally think it is even more simple to make some bitmasking (and we are get used to it) than the following optlen={17|33} format. Currently, the proposal is still in the previous format with some 5-bit field and a bit for a flag.

[the format to have independent C_K/DM_K octet -- *not* included in the I-D]

     (if option_len = 17 )

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    OPTION_MPL_PARAMETERS      |          option_len           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         DM_IMIN               |          DM_IMAX              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         DM_T_EXP              |          C_IMIN               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         C_IMAX                |          C_T_EXP              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         SE_LIFETIME           |    FLAGS      |    C_K        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      DM_K     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     (if option_len = 33 )
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    OPTION_MPL_PARAMETERS      |          option_len           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          MPL Domain Address  (128bits)                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          (cont'ed)                                            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          (cont'ed)                                            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          (cont'ed)                                            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         DM_IMIN               |          DM_IMAX              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         DM_T_EXP              |          C_IMIN               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         C_IMAX                |          C_T_EXP              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         SE_LIFETIME           |    FLAGS      |    C_K        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      DM_K     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Thanks,

Yusuke


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-00.txt
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:39:42 -0700
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
CC: roll@ietf.org


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
  This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Working Group of the IETF.

         Title           : MPL Parameter Configuration Option for DHCPv6
         Authors         : Yusuke Doi
                           Matthew Gillmore
	Filename        : draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-00.txt
	Pages           : 9
	Date            : 2014-03-13

Abstract:
    This draft defines a way to configure MPL parameter set via DHCPv6
    option.  MPL has a set of parameters to control its behavior, and the
    parameter set is often configured as a network-wide parameter because
    the parameter set should be identical for each MPL forwarder in an
    MPL domain.  Using the MPL Parameter Configuration Option defined in
    this document, a network can be configured with a single set of MPL
    parameter easily.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-00


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

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt