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

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 08 August 2014 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.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 375011A854D; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 OTAOQlL_zmXU; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com (mail-pa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31E5F1B2A18; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id hz1so7747279pad.22 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=N5Rshfp2LvAE3j8XyNOFpQrIQaNzsw9XRKZvIjwbBxI=; b=d0Yi0x23Ko20GJoMY3M+3vt7k4iJWKByXF5s5uL4Mn+0U7zRDez2o6953pCqfRGxPT XVrSrfATsrOPtFvyACH+zH0E8hVop9NtxLzCkz6g5wMlUSbLbVyIU3dvcynzeb1+BFH8 BQ8/eAKiYljwC8oEnK3xO4wEq1tiPqHHYjRwzrOXwyUT3PD1wiRE3NVDgcSuSCbMTJZc T2xTdQMTy8joWtljTl6/iKpJYrmTNa5EfCkaE8x888pzky26nMI+qRa5elPRsIzyEO5s 9ZtFue4u9pw/HgEAVDKQ/Ep6HEZdkBwEYOTkjBzwqNyLm9jWCXX2xjuDLqj84ftBYoMz ne/Q==
X-Received: by 10.66.123.75 with SMTP id ly11mr20247823pab.82.1407529150895; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.82.101.34] (rtp-isp-nat1.cisco.com. [64.102.254.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cb8sm28710727pad.8.2014.08.08.13.19.08 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A9FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 16:19:05 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <057EC9C6-07FF-409B-A3BC-3348A5F43AB3@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>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/75dTdfi3ZZtOVSD6VN4avSsY_w4
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: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 20:19:14 -0000

On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:11 AM 8/5/14, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> I think I see what you are saying, Phil.
> 
> I can split 1.3 to isolate the deviations to 6437.
> 
> I also need to move the following text from section 3 in that new section 
> 
>  This may seem contradictory with the IPv6
>   Flow Label Specification [RFC6437] which stipulates that once it is
>   set, the Flow Label is left unchanged; but the RFC also indicates a
>   violation to the rule can be accepted for compelling reasons, and
>   that security is a case justifying such a violation.  This
>   specification suggests that energy-saving is another compelling
>   reason for a violation to the aforementioned rule.
> 
> Proposed update for that text:
> 
>   This specification updates the IPv6
>   Flow Label Specification [RFC6437], which stipulates that once it is
>   set, the Flow Label is left unchanged. [RFC6437] also indicates that 
>   a violation to the rule can be accepted for compelling reasons, 
>   but limit those compelling reasons to security related issues.  This
>   specification indicates that energy-saving is another compelling
>   reason that justifies a violation to the aforementioned rule.

Well, I personally don't read the text in RFC 6437 as saying "a violation to the rule can be accepted for compelling reasons".  To avoid arguments with difficult individuals like me, you might take a more neutral approach:

This document updates the following text from RFC 6437, "IPv6 Flow
Label Specification":

OLD:

   Once set to a non-zero value, the Flow Label is expected to be
   delivered unchanged to the destination node(s).  A forwarding node
   MUST either leave a non-zero flow label value unchanged or change it
   only for compelling operational security reasons as described in
   Section 6.1.

NEW:

   Once set to a non-zero value, the Flow Label is expected to be
   delivered unchanged to the destination node(s).  A forwarding node
   MUST either leave a non-zero flow label value unchanged or change
   it only for (1) compelling operational security reasons as
   described in Section 6.1 or (2) use as specified in RFC-to-be, "The
   IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain".

- Ralph


> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philip Levis [mailto:pal@cs.stanford.edu]
>> Sent: lundi 4 août 2014 20:23
>> To: Ralph Droms
>> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Michael Richardson; Routing Over Low power
>> and Lossy networks; ipv6@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> I agree. I think some of the text in 1.3 can be re-used for this purpose.
>> 
>> Phil