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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Fri, 19 December 2014 11:59 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 5CB9B1A8F50; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 03:59:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 rtoCfpMf0l-Y; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 03:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ACAE1A9129; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 03:59:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3142; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418990387; x=1420199987; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=NK9THQDqOoFdHeoJwBHdH3CkPAr4EUxKbYF3RgTNYvU=; b=leG1eSLb7Ro3P1L7FCdrc2/Nzailshp2Q4BCIP8x3GuTv8yN+9p7LFJL UmfKrJrm3lwSxEQUgSWtiKrG5St4m7ZtLPhaePq0qZeNrrDutsFAHypUt JbQqgsSFla3Q+nvz4h1UfKW6QrzHhZ38z5Zu9kHOB/0VuSxFcIJzCp38q o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmwIAB8SlFStJA2K/2dsb2JhbABagwZSWASDAcB6ghsKhGOBDgIcfhYBAQEBAX2EDAEBAQQBAQEaBhE6CwwEAgEGAhEEAQEBAgIGHQMCAgIlCxQBCAgCBA4FCIgkDZxMnGiWPwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEgSGOAx0xBwaCYi6BEwEEjgyJfY0Cgzkig2xvgUV+AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,606,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="381331057"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2014 11:59:46 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBJBxkFO006382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:59:46 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.21]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 05:59:46 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression
Thread-Index: AQHQG2REggF8pnpY6Ey+ZkTiXklmHZyWzn+w
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:59:44 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:59:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC7D04@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC2314@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <184B78CA-953E-45AB-B00C-B3A12CFE4605@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <184B78CA-953E-45AB-B00C-B3A12CFE4605@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.49.80.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/7Nv94r2wn0yXs7xjlcWbeROzYuw
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: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:59:50 -0000

The rush Carsten, 

is that the document that will be the base for the 6TiSCH interop test in Prague is now in last call, and that document refers to the NHC draft.
The question is what should it refer to, and whatever it refers to should be stable and implementable by now.

Just the first (per your words) is just fine with me. 

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
> Sent: vendredi 19 décembre 2014 09:17
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
> Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org; int-ads@tools.ietf.org; 6tisch@ietf.org; 6lo-
> chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Roll] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression
> 
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 09:29, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Decision in Hawaii was that the NHC draft could not be accepted as is,
> > since we should compress also the RH3, and without a clear view of how
> > that would happen, the details of the NHC compression could not be
> > determined. So the NHC approach was abandoned
> 
> That is not at all what I recollect from Hawaii.
> 
> The current smorgasbord is:
> 
> — various ways to hijack the flow label (dead) — the 6553-NHC proposal —
> ideas for a new mesh header
> 
> I’m not going to beat the dead horse of the flow label hijack.
> 
> The 6553-NHC proposal mainly needs a decision between the three variants (flip
> a coin, if need be).
> If time is of the essence, 6553-NHC is the natural thing to do.
> We can always do an RFC 6554 NHC compression separately.
> 
> The MH proposal is forward-looking and probably the right thing for the
> evolution of 6lo, but probably also not compatible with a tight time schedule.
> 
> Now, what is the rush?
> RFC 6553/6554 do exist.
> 
> So we get to choose between rushing 6553-NHC to completion or using
> 6553/6554 for now and doing the MH work right (or. more likely than just the
> first, both).
> I don’t have an opinion on wether we need to rush 6553-NHC, but if we need to
> rush anything, this one it is.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll