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

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 06 January 2015 15:31 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 D5BE81A0211; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 07:31:04 -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 8tXwRTcY0kLk; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 07:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A784D1A00DB; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 07:30:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i50so16517624qgf.24; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:30:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=D79qegj4l2no82i5Hq2/nlbBOzYMBDxby9wBXBYgI3Y=; b=Tf+gjgL7ZCJpE1e0+Q4DdlSX+BFBN8VYBS++31Y7VmTabXYMD6vPZUry2JjEA8V4Hp x++LUPbGTz5Jupqv9aLt27Rn+MLC1GaIv3uvPaOV/WwKHfD1U1eDf459Gy6mXQXBHiWM jKRWVBGOy9S+XcRp2yCy/vrTPZ9djP+h6b3gzcs1U5/9XZbz1u7PJHQ3iJgb8ikVee64 X2d2JJ585FX0REbOOm3M/rKb1JCvKdQd4KGM709SJqRO7I0iH+HUDxPVNlDVzZsVYqsu RyxwiPA9UZ/oUumuYErZSsrLyFSlrfRlsMcy5OlG2IRbDMDJybJc5+O3Y+aOY0eRaV+R e6Gw==
X-Received: by 10.140.28.200 with SMTP id 66mr130317171qgz.16.1420558255516; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:30:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.82.101.41] (rtp-isp-nat-pool1-1.cisco.com. [64.102.254.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 77sm53566540qgx.43.2015.01.06.07.30.54 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:30:55 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <000701d02815$f43df5f0$dcb9e1d0$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 10:30:39 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3FFF5CDE-5C65-4AC1-AAAB-A6CBCE2BC087@gmail.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC2314@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <184B78CA-953E-45AB-B00C-B3A12CFE4605@tzi.org> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC7D04@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <54942758.6090705@innovationslab.net> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC86C5@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <549440F0.8040407@innovationslab.net> <5C9D8B2D-8779-450A-B558-D35323BA18FE@tzi.org> <12622.1420055894@sandelman.ca> <000701d02815$f43df5f0$dcb9e1d0$@olddog.co.uk>
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/J4ZXnW4t4Dmq4CAqh683jrGcNyQ
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, 6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org, "6lo@ietf.org WG" <6lo@ietf.org>, int-ads@tools.ietf.org, 6tisch@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: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:31:05 -0000

On Jan 4, 2015, at 6:59 AM 1/4/15, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> Thanks for continuing to try to wrangle this situation.

Agreeing - thanks.

> [...]
>> Please: how do we proceed?
> 
> Consensus can sometimes be hard-won and slow. It is one of the things that makes people claim the IETF is slow. On the other hand, the alternative to consensus is, erm, no consensus.
> 
> In agreeing consensus, however, we may need to declare minority opinions "in the rough" [RFC7282] if there is a body of opinion that one way of doing things is preferred and if the drawbacks of that approach are clearly recognised and accepted.

Yes, and, in this particular case, there are at least 4 working groups involved, which will make determining and declaring consensus even more difficult.


> 
> I see the plugfest as an important way of reaching consensus on this issue. That is, if the plugfest shows that a particular approach is functional and not harmful it provides a strong case for documenting and standardising the mechanism.

Another outcome of the plugfest would be to assess the quality of the existing drafts (can an implementation be built from just the text in the draft) and the impact of the new mechanisms on other parts of the IPv6 suite as well as network operation.

> 
> Beyond that it may be most helpful to note the objections to the "preferred" approach and to write text that explains the concerns and how they are mitigated (for example, not sending traffic out of admin domains without applying some magic policy).

I don't know that we have enough detail and discussion, yet, to have determined a "preferred" approach. 

- Ralph
 
> 
> Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll