Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03: Varying Trickle parameters per MPL Domain

["Dijk, Esko" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jonathan,

agree with your suggestion. Reading again , I think the last sentence of 5.4 would be even better like this:

It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarders use the
same values within an MPL Domain for the Trickle Parameters above, as specified in
[RFC6206].

Because the original text one could interpret as follows: if an MPL Forwarder F1 uses parameter set P1 in a Domain D1; F1 SHOULD also use P1 in a Domain D2.
The above sentence does not have this interpretation.

regards,
Esko

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hui (johui) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday 30 January 2013 23:10
To: Dijk, Esko
Cc: [e-mail] WG
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03: Varying Trickle parameters per MPL Domain


Hi Esko,

See below:

On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:45 AM, "Dijk, Esko" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> In Section 5.4, Trickle parameters are (implicitly?) forced to be 
> equal for all MPL Domains that an MPL Forwarder participates in, 
> because only 2 sets are supported per MPL Forwarder. Isn't this overly 
> restrictive? Given that the MPL Domains don't interact with each 
> other, it would be fine if a set of parameters is equal only within 
> one and the same MPL Domain (so, that means an MPL Forwarder could 
> have different Trickle parameters for each MPL Domain it is in.)

Yes, having the same Trickle parameters for all MPL Domains is overly restrictive.

> The final sentence of section 5.4 confirms this view, that only within-Domain parameter equality is important:
> "It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarder within an MPL Domain use the same values for the Trickle Parameters above"

Correct.  That was the intention.

> Since a configuration method for Trickle parameters is out of scope of 
> the I-D, it doesn't add any extra complexity here to allow different 
> Trickle parameters for different MPL Domains. Also, allowing this does 
> not seem to break the protocol in any way (unless I overlook 
> something.)

How about the following change:

Original from 5.4:

   Each MPL forwarder maintains a separate Trickle parameter set for MPL
   Data Message and MPL Control Message transmissions.  The Trickle
   parameters are listed below:

Change to:

   Each MPL Forwarder uses the following Trickle parameters for MPL Data Message
   and MPL Control Message transmissions.

Then keep the last sentence of 5.4 to indicate that one may use different parameters for different MPL Domains.

--
Jonathan Hui

> 
> regards,
> Esko
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of Jonathan Hui (johui)
> Sent: Thursday 24 January 2013 17:14
> To: [e-mail] WG
> Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03.txt
> 
> 
> This update addresses all of the open tickets in the following manner:
> 
> Ticket 103: MPL Control Messages may be disabled by setting CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS to zero.
> 
> Ticket 104: Added security considerations text.
> 
> Ticket 105: Scope is determined by the IPv6 Destination Address of MPL Data Packet.
> 
> Ticket 106: Text added to always use IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation when multicast destination does not match MPL Domain Address.
> 
> Ticket 107: Multiple parameter sets are not supported at this time.
> 
> Ticket 108: Added explicit 1-bit version field.
> 
> Ticket 109: All MPL packets must be destined to the MPL Domain Address that identifies the MPL Domain.
> 
> Ticket 110: Not in scope.  If an application subscribes to an address, it should receive all packets destined to that address whether or not they were received in an MPL Data Packet.
> 
> --
> Jonathan Hui
> 
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:09 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Working Group of the IETF.
>> 
>>      Title           : Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)
>>      Author(s)       : Jonathan W. Hui
>>                         Richard Kelsey
>>      Filename        : draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03.txt
>>      Pages           : 29
>>      Date            : 2013-01-24
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>  This document specifies the Multicast Protocol for Low power and  
>> Lossy Networks (MPL) that provides IPv6 multicast forwarding in  
>> constrained networks.  MPL avoids the need to construct or maintain  
>> any multicast forwarding topology, disseminating messages to all MPL  
>> forwarders in an MPL domain.  MPL uses the Trickle algorithm to  
>> manage message transmissions for both control and data-plane  
>> messages.  Different Trickle parameter configurations allow MPL to  
>> trade between dissemination latency and transmission efficiency.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast
>> 
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03
>> 
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> ________________________________
> The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>