IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 18 December 2014 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 C592C1A1B78; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:40:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] 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 IXaNUGA25z1L; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71E041A1B2C; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:39:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7696B20012; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:43:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 8501C63745; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:39:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A1A63741; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:39:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC2314@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC2314@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:39:17 -0500
Message-ID: <10328.1418920757@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/5LV9B67O7Zdn05ZHw7CWRKMQog0
Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "int-ads@tools.ietf.org" <int-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression
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: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:40:12 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > We are now in last call for draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-04 which
    > describes an interoperable operation of RPL over 802.15.4e TSCH.

...

    > My personal take is lex parsimoniae. By default, we should fall back to
    > the simplest to implement, which is also the least change in existing
    > implementations, and that is the original flow label approach; and I'm
    > calling the group for consensus on that default approach.

    > What do you think?

Not wearing any hat: I'm personally happy with the flow label approach.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status