Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Thomas' remarks on draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo-00
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Sat, 04 July 2015 10:59 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 BEAF71A03D5 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 03:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_GIRL=2.3, 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 ko7ayiwGA42s for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 03:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17F3D1A01F0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 03:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=95613; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1436007538; x=1437217138; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=Ry7uAYqFvy6jVpZw0ISAsu4Hjf+mxw3vJAud6vUJWew=; b=ctleuXE+Cyed5G9h2DD8WTXarAmVnYxkQi45vhBdUmdCVyYThgUdCF3T B0JqYBKydOmtMwBQ1q8JCYe3YmuNDrhewY20Gcv5ipPAPF4xlATJQTdMa er8JS4RKA4uV7IRr3FuEJbePbfoNKyR2VHALmGcEH2wlXj9xqUZBcNnvq Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B+CQDmupdV/51dJa1SCoJFTVRgrmSOO4F+GQEJgkOCakoCgSQ8EAEBAQEBAQGBCoQkAQEEAQEBFwEMQAcbAgEIOAEGBycLFBECBBMch34DEg3BQA2FYAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLS4JNgUsKAQYLAQItHguDF4EUBYcFhRQ4hGCCZAGEYYRigiQBgTkUMINRgw+MG4NdERWCDByBU28BgQyBPgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,405,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="165493761"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2015 10:58:56 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t64Awu4J017809 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 10:58:56 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.112]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 05:58:55 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] [6tisch] Thomas' remarks on draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo-00
Thread-Index: AQHQtiTrNXvIAJApukyimvjiup0+qp3LJIxF
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 10:58:55 +0000
Message-ID: <EFB43824-D172-4794-9371-770ECF92CF27@cisco.com>
References: <CADJ9OA_bRQv8rkkgwK1Q8pQ1=pB_Cd8iJ-Dk72z4uRwsJO-T+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CADrU+d+xV0doeAdYmHnLh-iAkq9_tMg4y_nB=gUkHu5baPD2Dw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMsDxWT66cPm4CxOyU5Cth2qgka66+NBe7Eas92-T86qubrbSw@mail.gmail.com>, <CAP+sJUfVh5rXv-WV0biQhs2BckmxhziZszYWBV+CAn=O_XwKiQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUfVh5rXv-WV0biQhs2BckmxhziZszYWBV+CAn=O_XwKiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EFB43824D17247949371770ECF92CF27ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/8qhg4_EtO916PfxopFyUCu7uLQM>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Thomas' remarks on draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo-00
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: <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: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 10:59:05 -0000
On the side Ines I m willing to contribute with formats in the compressed form from the 6LoRH draft if it is successful at 6lo. Would you want that in? Pascal Le 4 juil. 2015 à 08:44, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com<mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>> a écrit : Ok, Thanks for the suggestions Xavi :-). We will work on that. Cheers On 4 Jul 2015 06:58, "Xavier Vilajosana" <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu<mailto:xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>> wrote: Dear Ines, Michael, It would be also very good to have several examples (drawings) detailing how Extension headers are placed in the outer IPv6 header and how this extension headers coexist (or are concatenated) with other extension headers (non-RPL) such as IPv6 Fragment Header , IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header, IPv6 Header --Inner-- (EID 7), etc.. The drawings can also show how a sequence of extension headers is followed by a transport layer protocol such as UDP and if this affects HC. The examples can be complemented with the byte streams of that headers as clarification examples or to verify compliance. It would also be good to comment about header compression and all the possibilities we have or at least point to the RFCs that detail how extension headers are compressed and when compression cannot be applied or any other consideration. I think this draft is very valuable for most of us. Thanks for the work! regards, Xavi 2015-07-03 18:55 GMT+02:00 Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com<mailto:robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>>: Hi all, Happy to help out - I will take a closer look next week. A couple of points on first cursory read: 1) The control plane and data plane concepts should be distinct. By all means talk about control plane (i.e. RPL messages) and how they are formatted but keep this distinct from the structure of data plane packets used where RPL is used for routing. It is the data plane where IP-in-IP, RPL HbH and source routing headers are used and where the focus of the document should really be. 2) In the data plane, there are potentially two sorts of leaf node to consider: a) RPL-aware and b) not RPL-aware. This is important as it determines whether IP-in-IP is needed between nodes in a 6LoWPAN. Robert On 3 July 2015 at 14:52, Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu<mailto:watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>> wrote: Ines, Michael, Please find my remarks about draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo-00 below. Thomas ---- TW> overall comments TW> - this is a super important informational draft, which TW> clears up a lot of questions TW> - I think it would be very useful to have more example TW> packets. We are building such information for the upcoming 6TiSCH TW> plugtest, so I can help there. TW> - After this is done I would recommend to ask explicitly for TW> reviewers. Robert Cragie should be TW> on the list of people to ask; he has provided very useful info TW> during our discussions. ROLL Working Group M.I. Robles Internet-Draft Ericsson Intended status: Informational M. Richardson Expires: December 29, 2015 SSW June 27, 2015 When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo-00 Abstract This document states different cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required to set the bases to help defining the compression of RPL routing information in LLN environments. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Example flow from leaf to root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Example flow from leaf to Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Example flow from leaf to leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Traditional storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Traditional non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.3. P2P non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Example flow from Internet to leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Example flow from root to leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction RPL [RFC6550] defines RPL Option to transmit routing information. RFC 6553 [RFC6553] defines how to transmit in a Hop-By-Hop Option RPL Information,such as information to avoid and detect loops. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the use of Extension header for Source Routing. TW> this is a bit confusing to me. AFAICT: TW> - RFC6550 defines the RPL routing protocol TW> - RFC6553 defines the "RPL option", carried within the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop TW> header to quickly identify inconsistencies in the routing topology TW> - RFC6554 defines the "RPL Source Route Header", an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a RPL routing domain Several discussions in TW> the ROLL/6lo/6tisch TW> 6tisch -> 6TiSCH Mailing Lists took place focusing in the definition TW> of how to compress RPL Information in constrained environment. ROLL Virtual Interim Meeting (02-2015) concluded that there is a need to define how to use RFC 6553, RFC6554 TW> you have to decide whether you use "RFC 123" or "RFC123". I would TW> recommend you replace this by a hyperlink and tunneling (IP-in-IP) TW> I would say "and IP-in-IP encapsulation" to be able to set the correct environment for compression. 2. Terminology and Requirements Language TW> you're actually not using any of this language in the draft. TW> if you keep it that way, and since the draft is informational TW> I would recommend to remove this section Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Terminology defined in [RFC7102] 3. Sample/reference topology In a typical topology we found TW> "we found" reads strange. What about "A RPL network is composed of TW> ...[6LR,6LBR]... logically organized in a DODAG structure". 6LBR (6LoWPAN Border Router), 6lR TW> 6LR (6LoWPAN Router) and 6LN (6LoWPAN Node) as leaf connected in a DODAG (Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph). Between these entities messages such as DIS, DIO and DAO are transmitted. RPL defines the RPL Control message as an ICMPv6 information message with a Type of 155. TW> RPL defines the RPL Control message, a new ICMPv6 message with TW> Type 155. DIS, DIO and DAO messages are all RPL Control messages TW> but with different Code values. RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: Storing, it is fully stateful or Non-Storing it is fully source routed. Any given RPL Instance is either storing or non-storing. TW> please specify that a RPL Instance is either fully storing or fully TW> non-storing, i.e. a RPL Instance with a combination of storing and TW> non-storing nodes is not supported +--------------+ | Upper Layers | | | +--------------+ | RPL | | | +--------------+ | ICMPv6 | | | +--------------+ | IPv6 | | | +--------------+ | 6LoWPAN | | | +--------------+ | PHY-MAC | | | +--------------+ Figure 1: RPL Stack Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015 +---------+ +---+Internet | | +---------+ | +----+--+ |DODAG | +---------+Root +----------+ | |6LBR | | | +----+--+ | | | | | | | | | | +-----+-+ +--+---+ +--+---+ |6LR | | | | | +-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | +------+ | +-----+-+ +-+----+ +-+----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ +- --+ +---+-+ |Leaf | | | | | | | | | |6LN | | | | | | | | | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+ Figure 2: A reference RPL Topology TW> I would add a "." at end of each caption In different scenarios the use of RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and tunneling can take place: TW> I would say that a combination of RFC6553, RFC6554 and IP-in-IP TW> encapsulation is used for the following traffic flows: -Flow from leaf to root TW> remove newlines? -Flow from leaf to Internet -Flow from leaf to leaf -Flow from Internet to leaf -Flow from leaf to root TW> duplicate 4. Example flow from leaf to root A leaf node generates DAO and DIS messages and in general does not accept them. TW> what do you mean by "accept"? Additionally, this kind of nodes TW> node accepts DIO messages, but in general do TW> does not generate them. (In inconsistency A leaf node generates DIO with infinite rank, to fix it). TW> A -> a Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015 4.1. Non-storing In non-storing TW> mode in this case TW> remove "in this case" the leaf node uses Hop-By-Hop option (RFC 6553) to indicate the routing information to send messages to the DODAG root, this message is going to be analyzed in each node until arrive the DODAG root. RFC 6554 was created to strictly send information between RPL routers in the same RPL routing domain. How it would be in 6554? TW> I assume a "TODO" missing before last sentence? TBD: Tunneling is necessary in case that there is information to send outside RPL Domain and other cases? +------+ | | | 6LBR | | | +---+--+ | | LoWPAN_HC | Route= 6LN-6LR-6LBR ^ | | +---+-+ | | | | | 6LR | | | | | +--+--+ | | LoWPAN_HC | | Route= 6LN-6LR-6LBR | | + | +--+--+ | 6LN | | | | | +-----+ Figure 3: From leaf to Root - Non-Storing Mode TW> I don't fully understand what message this figure conveys TW> I would use A B and C to name the nodes, and write their role TW> next to them 4.2. Storing IP6 6553{X,Y] ?ipip payload. TW> something's wrong In storing mode is suitable the use of RFC 6553 to send RPL Information through HBH field checking the routing table to find out where to send the message. TW> I don't understand "checking the routing table to find out where TW> to send the message" It may include IP-in-IP encapsulation to transmit information not related with the RPL domain. TW> I would expand this info Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015 +------+ | | | 6LBR | | | +---+--+ | | LoWPAN_HC | 0x63|HBH Data ^ | | +---+-+ | | | | | 6LR | 6LR check in routing table | | | | +--+--+ | | LoWPAN_HC | | 0x63|HBH Data | | + | +--+--+ | 6LN | | | | | +-----+ Figure 4: From leaf to Root - Storing Mode 5. Example flow from leaf to Internet 5.1. Non-storing In this case the IP-in-IP encapsulation should take place to send information not related to the RPL domain inside of the RPL domain. RPL information from RFC 6553 should not go out to Internet. The router sould TW> typo take this information out before send the packet to Internet. The HBH Option is going to be analyzed in each node to the root. TW> illustrate this with a fig? Related to RFC 6554 the Source Header route is added and removed by DODAG root. However, RFC 6554 was created to strictly send information between RPL routers in the same RPL routing domain. How it would be in 6554? TW> this paragraph relates to down traffic, right? The name of the section TW> is "from leaf to Internet" Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015 5.2. Storing In storing the information of RFC 6553 should take away by DODAG root before go to Internet. TW> but as well in non-storing, no? 6. Example flow from leaf to leaf can leafs insert appropriate headers, without ipip? In [RFC6550] RPL allows a simple one-hop P2P optimization for both storing and non- storing networks. A node may send a P2P packet destined to a one-hop neighbor direclty TW> typo to that node. Section 9 in [RFC6550]. TW> I would say that IP-in-IP is not needed in this case 6.1. Traditional storing TW> why "Traditional"? The route go through an ancestor that knows the route to the destination, using HBH [RFC6553] to carry RPL Information. 6.2. Traditional non-storing The route go through the DODAG root, using source routing [RFC6554]. 6.3. P2P non-storing (p2p storing? TBD) 7. Example flow from Internet to leaf A DODAG root do not add routing extension to incoming packets, it instead uses tunneling. 7.1. Storing DODAG root adds the HBH header [RFC6553] and send the packet downward to the destination. 7.2. Non-storing DODAG root is going to add the source route header [RFC6554] 8. Example flow from root to leaf 8.1. Storing DODAG root adds the HBH header [RFC6553] and send the packet downward to the destination. 8.2. Non-storing Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015 DODAG root is going to add the source route header [RFC6554] 9. IANA Considerations There are no IANA considerations related to this document. 10. Security Considerations TBD. TW> I would replace TBD by TODO, per usual covention 11. Acknowledgements TW> typo This work is partially funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training Network (ITN) METRICS project (grant agreement No. 607728) 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. [RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low- Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, March 2012. [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6 Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, March 2012. 12.2. Informative References [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, January 2014. Authors' Addresses Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015 Maria Ines Robles Ericsson Hirsalantie 11 Jorvas 02420 Finland Email: maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com<mailto:maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com> Michael C. Richardson Sandelman Software Works 470 Dawson Avenue Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 CA Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr%2Bietf@sandelman.ca> URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/ Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 9] _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list 6tisch@ietf.org<mailto:6tisch@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
- [Roll] Thomas' remarks on draft-robles-roll-useof… Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Thomas' remarks on draft-robl… Robert Cragie
- Re: [Roll] Thomas' remarks on draft-robles-roll-u… Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Thomas' remarks on draft-robl… Xavier Vilajosana
- Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Thomas' remarks on draft-robl… Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Thomas' remarks on draft-robl… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Thomas' remarks on draft-robles-roll-u… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Thomas' remarks on draft-robl… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] Thomas' remarks on draft-robles-roll-u… Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Thomas' remarks on draft-robl… Ines Robles