Re: [Roll] [6lo] [6tisch] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-00.txt

[James Woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> [...]

The new proposal allows to encode the existing MH with limited change but
> now it is extensible. The price to pay is different network. And the
> question to the group is whether that is acceptable.
>

I'm not sold...


> Even if there are implementations today, RFC 4944 is not an internet std
> and we have just seen the very beginning of the IoT. Better fix things now
> than later...
>

According to the IETF Datatracker, RFC 4944 is a Proposed Standard, which
puts it into the same category as "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
Ethernet Networks" [RFC 2464 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2464/>],
so I would never consider the fact that it doesn't have a STD number a good
argument for ignoring back-compatibility with it.  The statement "we have
just seen the very beginning of the IoT" is a bit harder to get my hands
around, but it sounds like a call for breaking existing deployments now
while they are thought to be rare and not a very large sunk cost, which
strikes me as a value judgment I would be wary about making.  I agree with
Martin that some consideration needs to be paid to version differentiation,
at the very least, if we're going to consider deprecating the Mesh Header
and replacing it with entirely different semantics, and even then, I may
still not be sold.

Shorter james: the draft doesn't seem acceptable to me at this time. Maybe
I'm insufficiently frightened of the foreseeable consequences of rejecting
it?


-- 
james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering