Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03

Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu> Thu, 07 August 2014 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
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 06D0C1A00BB; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 cEk2slCS8zdO; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.cs.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.cs.Stanford.EDU [171.64.64.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3769D1A00B9; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [76.14.66.110] (port=52176 helo=[192.168.0.103]) by smtp1.cs.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <pal@cs.stanford.edu>) id 1XFRad-00064l-I7; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:35:00 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A9FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:35:01 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <23EA0E40-A503-4F7E-A4A9-7A33D43A215D@cs.stanford.edu>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D189A1@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <406B5D64-4F0E-4E71-BC60-A113FB367652@gmail.com> <46112F69-05F0-4E50-A808-287B06AE8E5F@cs.stanford.edu> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A9FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Scan-Signature: 37a9e86f2e4d2511d38563a73d487f50
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/Mn0jqIVgiQYsdiqUcRvB7Kwf0E8
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
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: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:35:03 -0000

Seems reasonable to me, although a bit cumbersome. I'd suggest

  This document updates the IPv6
  Flow Label Specification [RFC6437], which stipulates that once the Flow
  Label is set, forwarding nodes do not update it unless there are compelling
  security reasons to do so. This document argues that saving energy in LLNs 
  is another sufficiently compelling reason to modify the Flow Label.

Phil

On Aug 5, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> I think I see what you are saying, Phil.
> 
> I can split 1.3 to isolate the deviations to 6437.
> 
> I also need to move the following text from section 3 in that new section 
> 
>  This may seem contradictory with the IPv6
>   Flow Label Specification [RFC6437] which stipulates that once it is
>   set, the Flow Label is left unchanged; but the RFC also indicates a
>   violation to the rule can be accepted for compelling reasons, and
>   that security is a case justifying such a violation.  This
>   specification suggests that energy-saving is another compelling
>   reason for a violation to the aforementioned rule.
> 
> Proposed update for that text:
> 
>   This specification updates the IPv6
>   Flow Label Specification [RFC6437], which stipulates that once it is
>   set, the Flow Label is left unchanged. [RFC6437] also indicates that 
>   a violation to the rule can be accepted for compelling reasons, 
>   but limit those compelling reasons to security related issues.  This
>   specification indicates that energy-saving is another compelling
>   reason that justifies a violation to the aforementioned rule.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philip Levis [mailto:pal@cs.stanford.edu]
>> Sent: lundi 4 août 2014 20:23
>> To: Ralph Droms
>> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Michael Richardson; Routing Over Low power
>> and Lossy networks; ipv6@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 2:01 PM 8/4/14, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The change is now done, Ralph.
>>>> 
>>>> The only difference between draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03 and
>> draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-04 is
>>>> 
>>>> Updates: 6437 (if approved)
>>> 
>>> I suggest adding a section to your doc that explains exactly what is being
>> updated in RFC 6437.
>>> 
>>> - Ralph
>> 
>> 
>> I agree. I think some of the text in 1.3 can be re-used for this purpose.
>> 
>> Phil