Re: [Roll] [6lo] Fwd: Comparison of 6lo-rpl drafts

Carsten Bormann <> Wed, 17 September 2014 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5481A0203; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 04:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Uswhx1wfLdN; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 04:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFF491A02D9; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 04:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8HB511n016137; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:05:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B70A8D4A; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:05:00 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:04:59 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 432644699.462023-a7006d3a706778c13caef4895a7421ec
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc: "" <>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] Fwd: Comparison of 6lo-rpl drafts
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:05:37 -0000

On 17 Sep 2014, at 12:11, Abdussalam Baryun <> wrote:

> Why not?

RFC 6437 explains what flow labels are and how you can use them.

> If this WG decides that we want ROLL's solution decision then we may do cross WGs discussions or cross areas (this in not done much in IETF because still IETF is not flexible or ADs are not promoting that enough). 

There already was a common WGLC between ROLL and 6man.
Initially, there was some flexibility on the 6man side along the lines of “if you really have to do this”.
Once it was demonstrated that there is no actual need to hijack the flow label, the sentiment shifted.
I see little point in repeating this experiment.

> I think we need to clarify that 3 proposals. So why you think we are doing it quickly. 

Because the 6lo WG has a track record of getting things done quickly.
(Also, I’m only aware of a single active proposal, but maybe I haven’t been paying enough attention.)

> Why you think that it is dead? 

See above.

Grüße, Carsten