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

Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp> Thu, 02 July 2015 09:24 UTC

Return-Path: <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
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 139EB1B30FF; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 02:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 zEVFfqn7ouiF; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 02:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imx12.toshiba.co.jp (imx12.toshiba.co.jp [61.202.160.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3672C1B30ED; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 02:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tsbmgw-mgw01.tsbmgw-mgw01.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.232.103]) by imx12.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id t629OiCL025902 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:24:45 +0900 (JST)
Received: from tsbmgw-mgw01 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tsbmgw-mgw01.tsbmgw-mgw01.toshiba.co.jp (8.13.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t629OilZ005910; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:24:44 +0900
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by tsbmgw-mgw01 (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.1) with SMTP ID 919; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:24:44 +0900 (JST)
Received: from arc11.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.90.127]) by tsbmgw-mgw01.tsbmgw-mgw01.toshiba.co.jp (8.13.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t629OhHP005894; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:24:43 +0900
Received: (from root@localhost) by arc11.toshiba.co.jp id t629Ohhi001104; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:24:43 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ovp11.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.90.148] by arc11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id UAA01094; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:24:43 +0900
Received: from mx2.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id t629OgoJ019471; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:24:42 +0900 (JST)
Received: from spiffy20.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id t629OfUe018294; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:24:41 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:200:1b1:1010:e95c:15be:95b0:42d8] (unknown [IPv6:2001:200:1b1:1010:e95c:15be:95b0:42d8]) by spiffy20.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C931C18F4D9; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:24:41 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <55950359.8050601@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 18:24:41 +0900
From: Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: aretana@cisco.com, draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration@tools.ietf.org
References: <D1A4F4BA.B8391%aretana@cisco.com> <5581A3AD.8060309@toshiba.co.jp> <D1A87940.B8D01%aretana@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1A87940.B8D01%aretana@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by tsbmgw-mgw01.tsbmgw-mgw01.toshiba.co.jp id t629OhHP005894
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/OTD339luvvWyYHymBvKZqBQy0Ik>
Cc: roll-chairs@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration
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: <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: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:24:52 -0000

Dear Alvaro,

Sorry for late update. I've just submitted revised version (06, not 05, sorry for unfixed nits)

On 2015-06-19 01:49, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> 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.
>
> Suggestion:
>
> OLD>
>
>     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.
>
>
> NEW>
>
>     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 constraints.
>
> I¹m not sure if you/the WG want to add something else to that paragraph..

Thank you. I used your suggested text.

> How about this instead:
>
> NEW>
>
>     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
> configured.
>
> 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?

I added some text on manual configuration on -06.
I believe the priority of manual configuration is up to the implementation and out of scope of the document.

BTW, on your previous e-mail on June 16:

> 2.5. (DHCPv6 Relay Behavior).  A reference to rfc6422 would be nice.

I think this document does not have any Relay-supplied information. Is the reference still nice-to-have? (-06 does not have reference for 6422).

Thanks!

Yusuke