Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 04 August 2014 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.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 3F5FF1A0305; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 12:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 XdxeDzmfmnbA; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 12:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 651581A0301; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 12:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m5so7281111qaj.21 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 12:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5Ltqlyh35MTWx9l+txl8Yu3tfNwVBN+BV3dzh9maHCg=; b=bmWTi+UGjnODlRNMhXtkYOYqayx3PK3zs5Pcpvy7lF09rHct8jTxt8Aw/hl+3Aa3jj HHCFAgXiQvuy67AEKWzFupReHjfYwCWGmlUMNcr9wo3ooYW9YnV5UxyIJHsiF1LQNmtv +ywjeM+lvjsRSLlu1rxRGNUUvhaen1/ICfealo1Xj3MXVuwa53NTH0CiWnVQpYmrnPiQ GEMavom8EJnzogXOc/K//o6cqanQBX035y5K0Ksrxt6LO7E8W9S6Idux06xYb07MgtvH uqYr9eoGFF+IjIMjdJ/v0ty232i3qiIr/mEj5nPGDbKHIET/xZHdxLSasBX7BGsTBCOh VH4Q==
X-Received: by 10.140.17.81 with SMTP id 75mr37557788qgc.36.1407181453580; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 12:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.82.101.21] (rtp-isp-nat1.cisco.com. [64.102.254.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f92sm20246655qgd.44.2014.08.04.12.44.11 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Aug 2014 12:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A13E@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:44:10 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <00DFB20D-0A21-4AB7-B56B-F0E0F6DC01B3@gmail.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D189A1@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <406B5D64-4F0E-4E71-BC60-A113FB367652@gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A13E@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/CosD1xgIJFb2-08vSETBFmtMfQg
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 04 Aug 2014 19:44:17 -0000

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
>