IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>

Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 25 October 2010 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b6B5344D9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1403A697F for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.179, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aFZHh8CKh7Tu for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A16A3A6947 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net ([127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #2) id m1PARt4-0001flC; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:35 +0200
Message-Id: <m1PARt4-0001flC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b6B5344D9@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <3F7E0126-76FB-43BA-B25F-1EE226FA73AA@gmail.com> <79ECC38B-B7AD-47B1-B6A4-E0B4F75B91F1@gmail.com> <m21v7icp8p.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1P9IGH-0001fnC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4CC19ACF.5070706@ericsson.com> <m1P9IZF-0001gMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4CC1A3A5.9040209@ericsson.com> <m1P9J7Y-0001VwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4CC1A846.4030605@ericsson.com> <m1P9KDC-0001iFC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F29F6C36D06@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com> <m1P9ZgA-0001fnC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F29F6C36D97@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:30:37 -0700 ." <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F29F6C36D97@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:35:10 +0200
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:33:34 -0000

In your letter dated Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:30:37 -0700 you wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> This implies that the end-device has to be able to match RS messages
>> using timestamp, i.e. its clock has to be sufficiantly accurate (to withi=
>n
>> 5 minutes, according to the SEND RFC) to do that or (in the case of
>> failure) you would get hard to diagnose problems.=20
>
>That would be a failure of SEND that is orthogonal to the presence of the m=
>echanism described in <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>.

I guess you are right. SEND seems to leave out changes to the protocol
parameters for sending RS messages that are required for SEND to function
properly. But that is unrelated to this draft.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email