IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Fri, 11 September 2020 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B473A0770; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 l5bq-eqyah3Y; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12c.google.com (mail-il1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 047F03A064A; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id b17so10102367ilh.4; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Iud5vjA9hR6ArCweTsDsPf1bOI6KMRqlfyLQ8yg0FPA=; b=lC4CZKxcVFDmbDLK4z3moXb0TYB6NUXbvTx/+O3lR05BrYCnWONgFCfKc1LLgYr8Xw 5v2hQxIVXcwxvKlqyf5y7Za9l9BB2Nfu1/0nlB5ZQrPNudJ3qnHadCD98nYjKeYaN9pF RwouCJom5tH9L8phb/gi0WMmuPhwIwBHsouMwdZbWjbFgEuTAEYy4bdVGlVelH43DyOj CtqHGKwrVw7dlXsjHbZezqsF8YhwG7Nz7NaiXj74y855Ag3NsIV2Zx4yQnbkoUn8FmRF 8rw1VoD6khYqpB+tHsuSn3qaW6Ys7zhru6pDuznvYcCQuMkJtkv25PPtltyQDSQ2I4ys EA1g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Iud5vjA9hR6ArCweTsDsPf1bOI6KMRqlfyLQ8yg0FPA=; b=jdb1EEsu+rWWM/jmiyaiBtswSxrtF+bfWxsYERdGrGh8AYWrYN2UvRtCBWu0KbPeC1 Mb+mXeVLyFdtuDuBZie+wQmEfYh0ZE1EfakVK/doD6JKV5ci3NXGsKC/lduimH7XBLKb hqjZuRUqOcuoCCi/GLkqrwi17AI6o/lheKkOLe0yU/FlTbaGB/Mdsjd5p1+exfFRNfs1 DwurC+UZLUXp+2UDoaAgXTTIIbuCLSn0UfiC9Zq0qGnvWsp6oVo/z7Zh5knzrAoPXGO+ LDyYF4hd1HIFqeKZP5iZ8ZByOX8+qSRfLz7U4ZJwEhm+d1GuwUOgTXenZZN55iKwEyw5 bETg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5324JOJyudKuSt2ejsrsR1494xNjdUCGfvDmjHDdnAIOj4x65CLL A/WXn6f4vkoh4v/lk5fen8OVu1vq+SVhdXAz8C8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwi0R8WQ99vZTQkd1FngmNcPZKaVvrriCFgZ5+f7ZXrvyYlz2vqiPta9hBsXKf06I3VguA/xlhf3eHV6eKgjlU=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:6906:: with SMTP id e6mr3085862ilc.249.1599853999244; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159968972884.1065.3876077471852624744@ietfa.amsl.com> <MN2PR11MB35659A0710E687A7C9995E6ED8270@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200910200744.GE89563@kduck.mit.edu> <17053.1599841430@localhost> <20200911162617.GQ89563@kduck.mit.edu> <4724.1599853045@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <4724.1599853045@localhost>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:53:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxSp9n-MKWamQDN+3MHcN8TNJUinJB_Kjc55OY+=6engaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "roll-chairs@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@yahoo.com>, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, "draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000514c7b05af0f09e0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/OPneD-eF-myHvQblKJIHoJkPmwk>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 19:53:21 -0000

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:37 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
>     >> Tthat's exactly what we don't want to do.
>     >>
>     >> We are saying NOTHING about rfc8138 when MOP==7.
>     >> Nor are we saying that the T-bit exists (or doesn't exist).
>
>     > That's not how I read:
>
>     > For a MOP value of 7, the compression MUST be used by default
>     > regardless of the setting of the "T" flag.
>
> While I think that's probably what we'll conclude, this wasn't in for WGLC
> that I recall.  I think that this also must have gotten in during IESG
> review.
>
> Pascal, can we make this say:
>     For a MOP value of 7, there is no "T" flag, and the compression
>     behaviour will be defined by future work.
>
>
I believe this text would be sufficient to lift my DISCUSS, though I don't
completely understand the interaction between MOP and versioning in this
protocol.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email