Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 04 August 2014 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 D7F111A0107; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 cgxAY2FzZbv5; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE74D1A00F2; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3099; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407178366; x=1408387966; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Uz8edhBF+3tpo4HTxDhKvQFo8Z/z1KuwSSxDOr+TLGM=; b=ZybPunGFvYsIOLz08LZAvAsMdppw+lM/Z8Obx8Y2UgTxpA6+DLNm1HCI zu9zCwtzN9B/cxGU6oY2YC/m3rXO6vDhD3KzfYNkpu/fzo5tfcytjR/3O DgGTOPX7Zg6qKa6/1hzwVKlBOB34Q9k3e0I5jGhQVtUV62lQ6ndGN1px0 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkIFAH/V31OtJA2E/2dsb2JhbABbgw1SVwTMMAqHSgGBERZ3hAMBAQEEAQEBawsMBAIBCA4DBAEBAQodByEGCxQJCAEBBA4FCIgmAxENvgQNhmMTBI0fgV8dMQcGgymBHAWKVY8qkD6GKINNbIFG
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,799,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="66440083"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2014 18:52:45 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s74IqjqQ000673 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Aug 2014 18:52:45 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.37]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:52:45 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
Thread-Index: Ac+wDejPSf6MzwEzQpSdG5woHqaOoAAK2YQAAAkecMA=
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 18:52:44 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 18:52:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A13E@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D189A1@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <406B5D64-4F0E-4E71-BC60-A113FB367652@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <406B5D64-4F0E-4E71-BC60-A113FB367652@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.74.174]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/1ZduVtigiBR6EiHXqc1zFscltD8
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
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, 04 Aug 2014 18:52:52 -0000

Hi Ralph:

This is exactly section 3. 

The section provides a scope of applicability (the RPL domain) and the changes from RFC 6437 that become acceptable within that scope.

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: lundi 4 août 2014 20:11
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks; Michael Richardson;
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
> 
> 
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 2:01 PM 8/4/14, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> > The change is now done, Ralph.
> >
> > The only difference between draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
> > and draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-04 is
> >
> > Updates: 6437 (if approved)
> 
> I suggest adding a section to your doc that explains exactly what is being
> updated in RFC 6437.
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> > Sent: samedi 2 août 2014 22:57
> > To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
> > Cc: Michael Richardson; ipv6@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 2, 2014, at 4:48 PM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)"
> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> > That sounds right, Michael,
> >
> > I agree that "updates 6437" is a right thing to do.
> >
> > though slightly on the overkill side.
> >
> > I disagree that it is overkill.  In my opinion, draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-
> for-RPL pretty clearly contradicts RFC 6437, so "updates 6437" is an
> appropriate action.
> >
> >  And this is consistent with what Brian suggested. This can be added during
> the rfc editor process I expect?
> >
> > It should be added as soon as possible, certainly before it goes to the IESG.
> In my opinion, the change might warrant a new or extended WGLC; that
> action is up to the chairs, of course.
> >
> > - Ralph
> >
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> > Le 2 août 2014 à 21:09, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> a
> écrit :
> >
> >
> > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> > OTOH you need to understand that there is no need for a bis to update
> > a MUST in an RFC. We recognize the imperfection in our work and are
> > always ready to revise and amend after due consideration.
> >
> > Perhaps this document UPDATES 6437 then?
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software
> Works
> > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > Roll@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll