IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lp-wan] re-order header field request

Arun <arun@ackl.io> Wed, 21 June 2017 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <arun@ackl.io>
X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FA3131C78 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 jetsFzk8Wivo for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (relay6-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23864131C74 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mfilter12-d.gandi.net (mfilter12-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.129]) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E33FB8DA; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:23:50 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter12-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198]) by mfilter12-d.gandi.net (mfilter12-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rqDbCkkfhWjB; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:23:48 +0200 (CEST)
X-Originating-IP: 192.44.77.204
Received: from [192.168.1.157] (nat-asr-incub-b204.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.204]) (Authenticated sender: arun@acklio.com) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3767FB8C9; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:23:47 +0200 (CEST)
To: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
Cc: lp-wan@ietf.org
References: <386f3ac3-cc15-3fe7-8a7e-04d5be66c0ce@ackl.io> <ec067ef04c60b3fa38ea4887aa455314.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <b1ae6a91-b3a3-6197-2648-d9001a9eff1e@ackl.io> <8dd1a778fe41fe8b6ce97cad2b43d62b.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
From: Arun <arun@ackl.io>
Message-ID: <7a4cf891-5c53-96c3-3b4e-4e45a6408b44@ackl.io>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:23:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8dd1a778fe41fe8b6ce97cad2b43d62b.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bpjdJBWXvnd9PI8E79lFgf4AHIMlgO7L0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/BBuAIFjblE07oNu6Tpgj4z0wr5Y>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] re-order header field request
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" <lp-wan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lp-wan/>
List-Post: <mailto:lp-wan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:23:54 -0000

Hi Carles,
IMO, Rule ID would be a separate entity from other fields and will not
consume Wbit.

thanks,
Arun

On 21/06/2017 10:02, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote:
> Hi Arun,
>
> The point here is that the Rule ID field in fragments except the last one
> will not use the W bit (or equivalently, have one bit less than the Rule
> ID field in the last fragment as per current formats).
>
> So I'm wondering if this "additional bit" in the Rule ID of the last
> fragment could have any useful purpose or not, or conversely would just
> complicate the structure and uniformity of fragmentation headers.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carles
>
>
>
>> Hi Carles,
>>
>>  Having the uniform header format seems to be an ideal solution but
>> Tx'ing additional bit without any significance seems contentious.
>> Will wait for more feedbacks or comments :)
>>
>> thanks,
>> Arun
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email