Re: [Roll] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 05 January 2015 22:29 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 8C6951A9048; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 14:29:41 -0800 (PST)
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 Eh_g946BUpPs; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 14:29:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x230.google.com (mail-qg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9D3D1A903F; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 14:29:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id j5so4905935qga.21; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 14:29:39 -0800 (PST)
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=ZheBZCVtYqybEwrmcVcKpJATP4r7Ih/6gBTtbEe99es=; b=kcFjgN7ogHimCnxOp/+3mdVYQe4lbwUH89GFSaZePPfUpKkDcZLcXheERFy8Tk1S/d dOM+8zOVLvIksoyI1FML0R3bkPaWiH6X3/KdOqF0FfUaVt+P1aMLwLjjrvsPrmkcgXiu 3nWj41HQyxc/gnqKZ9aU4O4x0LNUx2+NcldKrtYzTVAW94kbYS155jWlPrynqH0TyfCH jlrgWxO8xS8FadjcR6F2PTb7jeX/dXKTYgeK0q1LZABR7GThpBLuHVDlg9TDRJ3Nlyf5 l21Q2RenAS6YhDfccqKL2wZLD4QPEZRF8TZjY3j4iKKPvD/Zz6tJlSOC8e18DwSzk6dW M3+w==
X-Received: by 10.224.8.137 with SMTP id h9mr89289148qah.55.1420496979160; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 14:29:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from che-vpn-cluster-1-258.cisco.com (198-135-0-233.cisco.com. [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w63sm33498079qgd.44.2015.01.05.14.29.38 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Jan 2015 14:29:38 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC2314@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:29:36 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CE9445B8-BA8E-4112-B892-6BCDED74D8DC@gmail.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC2314@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HmENXb9OGrrepHQRrPK_RDar7Og
Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "int-ads@tools.ietf.org" <int-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org WG" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression
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, 05 Jan 2015 22:29:41 -0000

Do I have it right that:

1) draft-thubert-roll-flow-label-02 compresses RPL RPI but not RH3
2) draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02 compresses RPL RPI and might be extended to compress RH3
3) draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-01 compresses both RPL RPI and RH3

In discussion during the IETF-91 6lo working group meeting, a concern was raised about further consumption of NHC codepoints beyond what is defined in draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02 for a future RH3 compression scheme.

Pascal, Carsten - as you have devised a mechanism for RH3 compression in draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-01, would you be able to retrofit a version of that mechanism into draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02?  This extension to NHC compression would provide an explicit proposal for evaluation of RPL header compression in NHC.

- Ralph