Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Wed, 01 July 2015 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CB31A90DD; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5qAfe3hTNQEA; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B34E51A7030; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5826; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1435768219; x=1436977819; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=yDPy81sbsLNj8vMioaNVHVEQ03AtpwrXrSgQmrWbf48=; b=mspMmG3azfd8OfQGYaibMyejPnDVFJgLh2C/8tn+W5G+NAvI0iKBFJXs 8MUFTyo2+q9AtsMtRYSacUjWWxxvClincqEpRhwIjQpJ5owTVIn6uvl2K BJeOHdfuVtwNj2a4TIyMG6+NsVuvWXVmMU6vh2wlS0S+73R/nXGMeKMCu w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,386,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="164703150"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 01 Jul 2015 16:30:18 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t61GUINZ002911 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Jul 2015 16:30:18 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:30:18 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: Yusuke DOI <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration
Thread-Index: AQHQtBs3LC0iFpiKQ0qg/P9swhcNUg==
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 16:30:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, Ines Robles <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:30:21 -0000



I didn’t see a follow up from you, but I’m assuming that we’re on the same

This draft is on the agenda for discussion in the IESG next week (July/9).
 The IETF Last Call has ended, and there are outstanding comments (minor
and nits) from IANA, SecDir and GenART.

Please take a look at the comments and post an update before next week.
The sooner the better to give the IESG a good chance to review the latest



On 6/18/15, 1:49 PM, "Roll on behalf of Alvaro Retana (aretana)"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>On 6/17/15, 1:43 PM, "Yusuke DOI" <> wrote:
>. . .
>>> Minor:
>>>  1. Section 1 (Introduction): "Some managed wireless mesh networks may
>>>     have a DHCP server to configure network parameters.²  How common is
>>>     the use of DHCP?  ³Some..may² doesn¹t sound like this extension
>>>     be used a lot.  How do other networks configure their parameters?
>>>       I¹m assuming manually..
>>I have no other experience, but I assume the configuration will be done
>. . .
>>>  3. Section 2.3 (MPL Forwarder Behavior)  Joining and leaving the
>>>     domain.  I must be missing something..
>>>       * "the node MAY join the MPL domain given by the option²  Why
>>>         would the client request the Option and then not join the
>>One reason is resource constraint. As joining to a MPL domain requires
>>certain amount of buffers allocated, a node may fail to join all of the
>>domains given by the option.
>The use of ³MAY² above gives the impression that joining is optional.  But
>you¹re saying that even if the node wants to join it may not be able to,
>which is different.
>   If a DHCPv6 client requests and receives MPL Parameter Configuration
>   Option, the node MAY join the MPL domain given by the option and act
>   as an MPL forwarder.
>   If a DHCPv6 client requests and receives MPL Parameter Configuration
>   Option, the node SHOULD join the MPL domain given by the option and act
>   as an MPL forwarder.  Note that there may be cases in which a node may
>   fail is to join a domain (or domains) due to local resource
>I¹m not sure if you/the WG want to add something else to that paragraph..
>>>       * "A node MAY leave from an MPL domain..²  The conditions seem to
>>>         say that the domain in the Option changed, is that true?  If
>>>         domain in the option changed, why would the node not leave the
>>>         domain?
>>There's no reason except the domain is configured manually at the same
>>time (the first condition is not met). If there are a manual
>>configuration, implementation may consider it's overriding the DHCPv6
>>Is this clear?:
>>A node SHOULD leave from a MPL domain if the node received a new option
>>without configuration for the MPL domain, unless it has overriding
>>external configuration on the MPL domain.
>How about this instead:
>   A node SHOULD leave an MPL domain if it receives an updated
>   MPL Parameter Configuration Option without a configuration for the
>   MPL domain, unless it has overriding external configuration.
>I¹m not sure if ³external² is the right word..or if ³manual² might be
>better.  Look at the point #1 above about how other nodes may be
>In this section (2.3) there¹s a priority of configuration shown:
>   The priority of MPL Parameter Configuration applied for an MPL Domain
>   is as follows (high to low).
>   o  Specific MPL Parameter Configuration to the MPL Domain (optlen=34)
>   o  Wildcard MPL Parameter Configuration (optlen=18)
>   o  Default configuration given in the MPL specification.
>But there is no mention anywhere in the document to external/manual
>configuration.  Where in that priority list should it fit?
>Roll mailing list