Re: [Roll] [6lo] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-04.txt

Jonathan Hui <> Fri, 10 July 2015 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9AC1B2A7E for <>; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GIBbes7Tl4eW for <>; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 522E71B2A70 for <>; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykeo3 with SMTP id o3so150218955yke.0 for <>; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zHfMsXg16pF8C53bI5bj7USxOAfEX456ba/JbqsOmRM=; b=Yes0I1uEof6ZvrxGPsCEspyNezud+eE83ejfOM5+Fqe5nZHSENeL0k4g33fjzKo1iy 4/Nne12g9E0oiZgeSOrREqujcQhI8wKX5hUw/YDjrclZM8xK2BwSnvMe2IV5NG3a5Six URKucMLQuBK4bSIgO72fKVpilsYlV+RapbKcI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zHfMsXg16pF8C53bI5bj7USxOAfEX456ba/JbqsOmRM=; b=MPwF/pdAEcf6jUVFnCSGUedafVgziKxRli+JJWarQExV3UB1lXDQzNUIU4aE6WIVJM vfvEG/05oWmKyMqQcCCuJ6qsLj4QGsv0rDJXmW1KwZRj9HZEkpT27IRESSh29QV4L5Hi gIc7L+aRiJhzaWvI/CeN22QHu+vsLsY6rieXtcxvR2lXm88mF7ku89nnXSeHVh1RFXQm qy/+3ovCVGPYxClDRxP4vBiCMBngbGz4An2tiaBrGkWwUPSMZ02qPSz0LOYEcgEjregn Ew/hX2j10iElLL2kudfgxTh98lIfNUbWIAfSAnQ3JG387D2izIJwhHIJzPTSect2VuBd sCxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkq4XzvbtmrNrsfnzq1mrN6m1c7Bw8p7VA4s6zgqAd28XvQ++pQUVuQ+GDFvactSEtYQGB8
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id x184mr11981952ykb.42.1436555417704; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:10:17 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Jonathan Hui <>
To: Gabriel Montenegro <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11396dee5f8f68051a8a1f29
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-04.txt
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:10:20 -0000

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Gabriel Montenegro <> wrote:

> Thanks, Pascal.
> I see that options 1 and 2 reuse the mesh header. And option 3 reuses
> NALP. All three of these reuse previously assigned values.

My reading of Option 3 in Section 3.3 is that it uses bit patterns that
have not been assigned yet.  In particular, bit patterns of the form

I was under the impression that one of the options was going to use a new
> type out of the ESC+<type> space. Sure, as you mention in the new draft
> revision, that is not defined clearly yet (though there is something being
> prepared), but neither is any of the stuff in the draft.

That is certainly another option to consider.

The point is that it would be good to have at least one option that does
> not reuse anything previously assigned (other than ESC, which is there for
> that purpose and is in our control to further define).

I agree that we should strongly consider encodings that allow both existing
assigned bit patterns and the TBD bit patterns to co-exist in the same
6LoWPAN frame.  If we can, we should avoid straight up reuse of
bit-patterns without any way to distinguish how to interpret between the
old and new.

Oh, and request noted. It would definitely be good to discuss this in
> Prague.


Jonathan Hui