Re: [Roll] [6lo] [6tisch] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-00.txt

Martin Turon <mturon@nestlabs.com> Mon, 01 December 2014 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mturon@nestlabs.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 16BF21A6FCB for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:52:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 S3OjZJUOELSu for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 155831A6FD0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:52:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x19so9732928ier.41 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 08:52:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eqGGUsBABGPMHo1KmZrWBT0ovBQDWdHc2StymoEdQrE=; b=KIHCEdns6l5Kzn0wAieJTD6xB5RVKc4Q/ZWXEI02hoMtqe3uiY3tgqnTlzNF59Majz 4t7rj3QufqrMu1eWJgYv/hVIeELkElN6vIfk+Sxwl46ceh5J2WyKYhANXp7PMQnfwMOD YBkOi6e3R6Zd5gqcD2UJeSOKWCyIzwLbTBazZIt5Q3Jk+1DcFUXhT7RTkhNckgI4n/18 f99r1gEXI9sfbJI+guTINd9B6GIaVliAVb9OI6Vk6leQihcaXbJkWTSS8aMlvgUSKrTM sLxItFE3LRJhxGVDjnoSjQJq0/xywn+matX1ix6mOpTvDulmwdHMgU98M/+FVV9H5Gwr qPVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlvvW17AYAVfW0AdncSkk9u2dBGHpae50DtzXiekxDi7WYwtvwBJvQXD/m3eVlgfqVdHYG8
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.5.76 with SMTP id 73mr16370127iof.74.1417452730450; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 08:52:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.128.72 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:52:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <239401C5-C9B7-4368-8008-164F902C68AD@tzi.org>
References: <20141127133537.6084.69209.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848A7DE36@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <5A4C4F93-2667-4510-8193-F0201219F816@nestlabs.com> <239401C5-C9B7-4368-8008-164F902C68AD@tzi.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:52:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CAH=LnKR5xQCDZuWygTJ6mDEOHmxDEgkDwRD2Xy72b-EZNXQ5OQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Turon <mturon@nestlabs.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ef7487c517c05092a6e0c
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HqDH9XLnW6WRwDZV21ifICKqMVA
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 10:51:10 -0800
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] [6tisch] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-00.txt
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, 01 Dec 2014 16:52:24 -0000

Hi Carsten,

Yes, section 11 refers to the mesh header defined in section 5, but does
not claim exclusive use of it.

My point really is to inspire people to rethink the long held dogma that
the mesh header and mesh-under are synonymous, and counter proposed text
that codifies that view.

They need not be viewed that way, and my reading of RFC4944 doesn't mandate
that the two be equivalent.  In fact, "Appendix A. Alternatives for
Delivery of Frames in a Mesh", covers some of the alternate use cases,
design ideas, and pros/cons of using the mesh header at layer 2 or 3.

Martin

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> On 29 Nov 2014, at 20:24, Martin Turon <mturon@nestlabs.com> wrote:
> >
> > The mesh header is very much in use today, and not purely for mesh-under
> conceptual designs.
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I think it would benefit this discussion if we could learn more about
> these use cases.
> In RFC 4944, the “Mesh Header” definitely was meant for mesh-under; we
> even have a section called
>
>   11.  Frame Delivery in a Link-Layer Mesh*)
>
> to discuss the use of the Mesh Header in forwarding adaptation layer
> packets between link-layer entities.  But that of course doesn’t mean there
> aren’t other ways to make good use of the Mesh Header — I’d like to learn
> more about those.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> *) The short forms “mesh-under” and “route-over” weren’t as much in use in
> 2007, so this is a long form trying to say “mesh-under”.
>
>