Re: [Roll] WGLC on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-04

dominique.barthel@orange.com Mon, 23 March 2020 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <dominique.barthel@orange.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A9F3A0CEB for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
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 kJjyBwQGSDtT for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3767C3A0D51 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.8]) by opfedar25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48mMBw1V0Zz8t3D; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 18:42:00 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1584985320; bh=tTvPGa/dB4fqoWMS8XFurZpbd3q3m49JV5qCD9IeR/g=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=l+z/JCOAqYL2tKqguenr8cHVvWfX73hF22jY9nO/Rdt/TzSpvS+uhonLLRDGrxuT1 Jd0aLrhWUGLf8pRs/E23aS4d68/pQSVSAm0hSjlNr+nmIa3GORs2YkcZ91sSU24PEA K1SkTmUEgTmG+Cnkn5a3u5U2JN9OgnvDJ3ZskyuVXL+PFiClNcNmtLdNflrBYZEOIg Y0YyQEH1SOMuhoJUhCWZdEzM+d2FeEZF9MSU19oohkbzfXLedTTJ7/MTQ467PL6Sd7 kQvhPyc9y0uNtg8sAcrQ+uucHsgOvI2c4rLkISQ9mNHZYgv7VwcUyGxeijpQVvanVy 3dty8Jlf8Z9lA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.38]) by opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48mMBv6cxNz3wbR; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 18:41:59 +0100 (CET)
From: <dominique.barthel@orange.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] WGLC on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-04
Thread-Index: AQHWATpaZYhAjEJ8SUuNGrALROSULA==
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 17:41:59 +0000
Message-ID: =?utf-8?q?=3C10280=5F1584985320=5F5E78F4E8=5F10280=5F121=5F1=5FD?= =?utf-8?q?A9EAE18=2E72626=25dominique=2Ebarthel=40orange=2Ecom=3E?=
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.3.170325
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DA9EAE1872626dominiquebarthelorangecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/8PXc-9GZJkt_PzCL_bq4gs6DE3M>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-04
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 23 Mar 2020 17:42:29 -0000

Hello Pascal, all,

I've read version –04 of draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138.
I've submit a Pull Request on GitHub with some nit fixes.
I have a few questions and comments:

  *   Regarding the title change to turnon-6LoRH: I understand that 8138 might get updated in the future. However, should the "T" bit mean that 6LoRH compression is in effect, irrespective of the version of this compression, or precisely that 8138 compression is in effect? If the former, what is the plan for managing the RPL nodes when successive versions of 6LoRH are introduced?
  *   Section 4, "delivering to a leaf that is not known to support RFC8138". Wouldn't a reference to the capabilities draft be appropriate here?
  *   Section 5: "A node that supports [RFC8138] but not this specification can only be used in a homogeneous network and an upgrade requires a "flag day" where all nodes are updated and then the network is rebooted with implicitly RFC 8138 compression turned on with the "T" flag set on." This sentence is too long. It could be broken in two after "flag day". "implicitely" seems strange, the RPL implementation would be hard-coded to use RFC8138 compression, very explicitly. "with the T flag set on" seems strange too, it seems to me the T flag would not be on if the nodes don't know this specification. Isn't it the whole purpose of the node configuration to explicitly override the "off" T bit? This paragraph need a little attention.
  *   Section 6, Table 1: it seems unfortunate that the second column is entitled "Capability Description". This name conflicts with the capabilities of the RPL nodes. This bit is a configuration option flag. By the way, RFC6550 20.14 does not say "Capability Description", but simply "Description". Why not stick with "Description" for this column in this table?

Notwithstanding these questions and comments, I personally support this work and wish to see it move forward.
Best regards,

Dominique

De : Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Répondre à : "roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>" <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Date : Tuesday 10 March 2020 14:50
À : "roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>" <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Objet : Re: [Roll] WGLC on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-04

I agree with Rahul on both counts, taking the doc to the next step (as author) and changing the title (as participant).

…

Our milestone is to submit it this month and I intend to put a focus on this;

All the best, and for those who still plan to fly to IETF 107, sorry I will not be in Vancouver to meet you : (

Pascal

From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Rahul Jadhav
Sent: lundi 9 mars 2020 09:40
To: roll <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-04

Hello All,

As someone who had previously reviewed the draft, I would like this work to be taken to the next logical step.

Also is it possible to rename the draft as "turnon-6LoRH" rather than "turnon-rfc8138"? Isn't it possible for RFC 8138 to be updated in the future? Similarly, the title may be "Configuration Option for 6LoRH" in place of "Configuration Option for 8138". Just a thought.

Best,
Rahul

________________________________
From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of dominique.barthel@orange.com<mailto:dominique.barthel@orange.com> <dominique.barthel@orange.com<mailto:dominique.barthel@orange.com>>
Sent: 06 March 2020 03:38 PM
To: roll <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Cc: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com<mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-04

Working Group,

The WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-04 was due to expire yesterday.
No comment was received so far.
Before we equate silence with agreement, please take some time to reflect on this draft, maybe even review it and most importantly send your thoughts.
Simple responses like "yes", "I approve it" are valid, too.
As chairs, we need to gauge consensus. Please help us serving the community.
Best regards

Inès & Dominique

De : "mariainesrobles@googlemail..com<mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>" <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com<mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>>
Date : Thursday 20 February 2020 10:16
À : "roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>" <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Cc : Dominique Barthel <dominique.barthel@orange.com<mailto:dominique.barthel@orange.com>>
Objet : WGLC on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-04

Dear all,

This is a Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-04

Please send your comments by 5th March 2020

Thank you very much in advance,

Ines and Dominique.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.