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

James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> Mon, 01 December 2014 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@nestlabs.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01D71A8983 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:20:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 3ZohYWV4VPbt for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:20:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f177.google.com (mail-vc0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F4EC1A897C for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ij19so4983354vcb.36 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:20:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=rpiMxYYO9KCBNLlExb9YEMWMoiJfzao8RIVtGtkNhfU=; b=bQnubR0llM1qAdHqH59cy6OFf7a6AwqV6WnPRgvcv9NMJJcoNYa7AAK230Fy51E54L dMe8Pb+dUHQP7S5+t9jPUQ5K/laeyeoFm7TWjjYVOK1U2eGxVDNBS7lcsiCpG5rZtFS3 LuAlrOyvxgZ/eJF24YnpAQOrBgzXx3mia5WDIYFIWSd/sw+YPOtd5/FovofFI3Ocgbcq HJXAhNchiXxaWn4k/KzY0sQiZLRrT0C6dEtkX6Vect4mthnoNfoZ6NFyQuT/+I2T0FGo j4iRjGkRvV1OGTmUGr6PJLgTL0YlrLfOnjdas1jNWQPUvhu+XCQhtLxykG90kxjphRsN dQBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZb2gx+MhR3aoqpZizBd/fUXDMJk8N6eIzmO+F6nNK0i0K8/RvZo2NQ7KDWLTLcD3hSDvo
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.221.4.73 with SMTP id ob9mr29722633vcb.13.1417461629287; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.10.65 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:20:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <85AC0776-88D7-4019-8BB1-B0E13B9F3E64@cisco.com>
References: <20141127133537.6084.69209.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848A7DE36@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <5A4C4F93-2667-4510-8193-F0201219F816@nestlabs.com> <85AC0776-88D7-4019-8BB1-B0E13B9F3E64@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:20:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CADhXe51mQxTFO5K2bD1gYhWWW7TgjoCJzY7Un5dFru1caV2ntA@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160524e596b905092c80d8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/-NO-8pcN4CIouJtPcKYyI4-YVMQ
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:28:36 -0800
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] [6tisch] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-00.txt
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:20:34 -0000

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthubert@cisco.com> 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 <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering