Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection

Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl> Thu, 13 May 2021 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDF33A0765 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 May 2021 03:46:15 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 Jo_2ZKOUD_in for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 May 2021 03:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mimuw.edu.pl (mail.mimuw.edu.pl [193.0.96.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0095D3A0766 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2021 03:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duch.mimuw.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BAEA6010FA46 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2021 12:46:07 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mimuw.edu.pl
Received: from duch.mimuw.edu.pl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.mimuw.edu.pl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id JNwVE4AThleB for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2021 12:46:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:6a0:5001:2:5c95:1ef7:2d3d:3006] (unknown [IPv6:2001:6a0:5001:2:5c95:1ef7:2d3d:3006]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by duch.mimuw.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2021 12:46:02 +0200 (CEST)
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
References: <CAP+sJUfcEY2DNEQV=duJdN6P8zZn0ccuei+4ra-B6TcLb5z8Kg@mail.gmail.com> <49ac5fc3-4a3c-fb87-d366-eb7e7cfd60df@mimuw.edu.pl> <18233.1583176305@localhost> <CAO0Djp3w4vWCOawQ+eegNTRzb_HRGYH6n=bdEH6iVf5ZO0AGFQ@mail.gmail.com> <f71fe153-c0d1-097e-a72e-49ece97cbd48@mimuw.edu.pl> <10272666-28c7-ab3e-9ceb-1b8f2bb6e5e5@mimuw.edu.pl> <CO1PR11MB4881A5AA0E5C5010FD2BE39ED8749@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <bc174171-4b68-40b2-d532-463709e5bea8@mimuw.edu.pl> <CO1PR11MB4881D0C985582B28AE2DE8BED84E9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ab695952-3b11-46ad-f638-622ca770f8e1@mimuw.edu.pl> <02c7a894-b7a8-8fcb-9119-172a91a3871b@mimuw.edu.pl> <8421.1620834368@localhost>
From: Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl>
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <d0f9bd53-ed96-1512-5bc2-59063ba2d5dc@mimuw.edu.pl>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 12:47:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8421.1620834368@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/-I8H2HKZvv-XvNAjVuFDu9fLHws>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 10:46:15 -0000

Hi Michael,

On 12.05.2021 17:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
>     > Hopefully, I have addressed all your previous comments (at least those
>     > that I knew how to address). The changes are in the GitHub repo. My
>     > question is:
>
>     >     What now?
>
>     > Despite the introductory videos, it is not completely clear to me what
>     > the next steps should be.
>
> A few illustrative slides for a virtual interim meeting, and then pester the
> WG chairs to adopt it.   I would support adoption, and I prefer that
> documents are adopted early.  (not everyone shares this view, see RFC7221 and rfc7221bis)

Thanks a lot for the explanation. I will thus prepare the slides for the 
meeting.

>     > Moreover, before a new version of the draft is produced, if at all, I
>     > would like to discuss a few issues so that the draft best matches the
>     > group's practices, both technical and nontechnical:
>
>     > 1. best method for enabling/disabling the protocol
>
> Can it use capex?

Thanks for the pointer. I will think whether and how CapEx could be used 
to this end.

>     > 2. simplicity vs. generality and reusability
>
> I'd need some examples here.

One of the reasons for the question is that CFRCs in the current RNFD 
option have a specific format (linear counting). However, one could 
think of allowing different CFRC algorithms in the option, even though, 
based on our experiments with such algorithms, I don't believe this to 
be terribly relevant. Moreover, this would make the protocol more 
complex, which I would like to avoid. Nevertheless, I wanted to ask if 
you have any preferences in this respect.

>     > 3. authorship of the draft
>
> The WG chairs essentially decide that, but it is unusual for them not to
> consult with you.
> (Most of the time, it's whomever fails to step back fast enough.)

Great. Hope that the chairs will value your and Pascal's contribution.

Best,
-- 
- Konrad Iwanicki.