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

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Tue, 12 August 2014 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.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 5ADEE1A0739; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 qo2bFEa2WOIR; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-x22d.google.com (mail-vc0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B621B1A06F3; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hy10so12832003vcb.32 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gy1XcLulMPFJ974RoRkizcPmuzDx/+yImn7r2EW3Ulo=; b=0gQU4mrY+pJh2L8KtAMzV9WY60dZUYU+FzMFZDCCjlavGtGRoBHLeHiCMt5a8pdchj lQ7zCM6e4qeFT/DdcXSjVaNKJpa4M7QLUQcBpwKsZ47nXv6UgQLHQtEray57WdONlQXz 4J++NmxXPQoObmSElvHDhXD5L50gX3agL4XQsbJt6F3UTlscrDnaJNRC/tDI82C/owMM mFr1VkQVPwGQ7jhXHzh7Iu0yJz01cZBW9FJSnE62KD2ehZJvSVsdN98fBvcxyOYRD2UF CqA3JMCnFrOKmOIqwRHVqkU8TPqacE25jbNFKy0ObIAj+4/GwGp4k87tCiyx3uSkCE73 DT0g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.136.196 with SMTP id qc4mr22062846vdb.22.1407827709780; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.58.69 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53E926EB.9000505@gmail.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D189A1@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <406B5D64-4F0E-4E71-BC60-A113FB367652@gmail.com> <46112F69-05F0-4E50-A808-287B06AE8E5F@cs.stanford.edu> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A9FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <057EC9C6-07FF-409B-A3BC-3348A5F43AB3@gmail.com> <53E534E8.4050304@gmail.com> <F7618DE0-7217-46C2-93A1-CE050085E7AB@employees.org> <53E926EB.9000505@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:15:09 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUfDyNa=t=+C=QXy8MmvG9rAUxA0mTsXL7xSWAeLUR1qcQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51b12bd8beb5e0500696ec5
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/2WkFeQh-dbJcSafzWMd0ejV53os
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <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: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:15:12 -0000

Hi,

On April, it was discussed and got consensus in ROLL [
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08634.html].

This technique saves bytes, as was demonstrated by Xavier in his
implementation [ start on Slide 41 -
https://bytebucket.org/6tisch/meetings/raw/712902bb451d113494a7045e9730f1bb50335a79/140720_ietf90_plugfest_toronto/ietf90_toronto_plugfest_slides.pdf].
Maybe we should enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of using it.
(Some of these are tracked in ticket #5, #6 and #7).


Anyway, demostratedIt needs the 6man approval to go forward.

Cheers,

Ines


2014-08-11 23:26 GMT+03:00 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>om>:

> On 12/08/2014 01:54, Ole Troan wrote:
> >> I *really* don't think RFCs are algorithms to the point where we
> >> need to do this. I see no reason why flow-label-for-rpl can't simply
> >> declare itself an exception to this clause of RFC 6437.
> >
> > I must admit I'm uncomfortable with this draft and its approach. how can
> we be sure that we aren't opening a Pandora's box?
> > I'm worried that we set a precedence, and we'll see a new set of
> creative proposals for the use of these 20 bits.
>
> Well, that has been the case for a long time: see RFC 6294.
>
> I see the concern. Actually that's why I don't want to see a formal
> update to 6437, because the only rational update would be to allow
> any closed domain to invent its own usage. We had that argument at
> length during the development of 6437, and decided against it.
> Therefore, treating RPL as a special case is the remaining option.
> But does the ROLL community actually have consensus that they want
> this special case?
>
>    Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>