Archive

On Aug 4, 2014, at 2:52 PM 8/4/14, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Ralph:
> 
> This is exactly section 3. 
> 
> The section provides a scope of applicability (the RPL domain) and the changes from RFC 6437 that become acceptable within that scope.

I disagree.  Section 3 explains how draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl can be interpreted as following RFC 6437 rather than describing the specific ways in which it updates RFC 6437.

For example, as Philip wrote:

> "but the RFC also indicates a violation to the rule can be accepted for compelling reasons, and that security is a case justifying such a violation.  This specification suggests that energy-saving is another compelling    reason for a violation to the aforementioned rule."
> 
> This is *not* what 6437 says. It says for compelling operational security reasons, not compelling reasons, of which one case is security.

- Ralph

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pascal
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms.ietf@gmail.com]
>> Sent: lundi 4 août 2014 20:11
>> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks; Michael Richardson;
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 2:01 PM 8/4/14, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The change is now done, Ralph.
>>> 
>>> The only difference between draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
>>> and draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-04 is
>>> 
>>> Updates: 6437 (if approved)
>> 
>> I suggest adding a section to your doc that explains exactly what is being
>> updated in RFC 6437.
>> 
>> - Ralph
>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Pascal
>>> 
>>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
>>> Sent: samedi 2 août 2014 22:57
>>> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
>>> Cc: Michael Richardson; ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 2, 2014, at 4:48 PM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)"
>> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> That sounds right, Michael,
>>> 
>>> I agree that "updates 6437" is a right thing to do.
>>> 
>>> though slightly on the overkill side.
>>> 
>>> I disagree that it is overkill.  In my opinion, draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-
>> for-RPL pretty clearly contradicts RFC 6437, so "updates 6437" is an
>> appropriate action.
>>> 
>>> And this is consistent with what Brian suggested. This can be added during
>> the rfc editor process I expect?
>>> 
>>> It should be added as soon as possible, certainly before it goes to the IESG.
>> In my opinion, the change might warrant a new or extended WGLC; that
>> action is up to the chairs, of course.
>>> 
>>> - Ralph
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Pascal
>>> 
>>> Le 2 août 2014 à 21:09, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> a
>> écrit :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> OTOH you need to understand that there is no need for a bis to update
>>> a MUST in an RFC. We recognize the imperfection in our work and are
>>> always ready to revise and amend after due consideration.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps this document UPDATES 6437 then?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software
>> Works
>>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roll mailing list
>>> Roll@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 