Re: [icnrg] draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-08.txt

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 15 August 2020 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0A43A0D87 for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 05:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 0qf-YVtb90Dh for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 05:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D48C3A0D89 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 05:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.116] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BTKhk1rzhz104C; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:42:46 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <E1954083-8BA4-4173-A87E-EA87D5771C9F@tzi.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:42:45 +0200
Cc: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 619188165.714247-62f3106a2a61fb68e65d9383e7801ce3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <64D0F686-1CA9-4B16-BFB3-AEFB48EC65F9@tzi.org>
References: <158832868689.11087.7358311653842055205@ietfa.amsl.com> <E1954083-8BA4-4173-A87E-EA87D5771C9F@tzi.org>
To: draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/4ojJx_z_vBmL66Bq11VezaCMpkc>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-08.txt
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:42:55 -0000

On 2020-08-12, at 20:54, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that this can easily be repaired by using two half pages instead of a full page, e.g. by indicating NDN vs. CCNx in the page number instead of the P bit (the most significant bit, which is now the P bit, would always be 0).

Having completed my initial review (and having sent a set of editorial comments to the authors), I now have a slightly different proposal:
Since there are only really 4 code points for uncompressed, put these at 0x80..0x83, and put the compressed ones at 0x00..0x7f.

So the (now inverted) C-bit would be bit 0, and NDN/CCNx and Interest/Data could be bit 6 and 7.

This also enables to put the whole 132 code points into page 15, which might be more appropriate for an experiment (and wouldn’t require an IANA allocation), but that is certainly a change that would require more attention from other participants of the experiment that might have other experimental code points out in the same experiment.  (Alternatively, this RFC could ask for allocating page 14 to experimental, as well, and suggest a page 14 mapping for ICNLOWPAN, leaving 108 code points in page 14 free and not impinging on other experiments.)

Since this draft is consuming space that ultimately belongs to 6lo, it may be appropriate to talk to that WG on how they see the evolution of that space.

It will probably help with that if a cogent statement can be made what the actual experiment is that this experimental RFC supports.  Although I sure can imagine what that might be, there is little information in the current draft.

Grüße, Carsten