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

Ralph,

On 05/08/2014 07:44, Ralph Droms wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 2:52 PM 8/4/14, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Ralph:
>>
>> This is exactly section 3. 
>>
>> The section provides a scope of applicability (the RPL domain) and the changes from RFC 6437 that become acceptable within that scope.
> 
> I disagree.  Section 3 explains how draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl can be interpreted as following RFC 6437 rather than describing the specific ways in which it updates RFC 6437.
> 
> For example, as Philip wrote:
> 
>> "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."
>>
> This is *not* what 6437 says. It says for compelling operational security reasons, not compelling reasons, of which one case is security.

It also says that there may be stateful ways of using the flow label.
It's almost a matter of taste whether the RPL usage is a change to
the phrase that you quote, or a stateful usage within an RPL domain
(reverting to stateless use when leaving RPL). I agree that the draft
could usefully be explicit about this.

   Brian

> 
> - Ralph
> 
> 
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms.ietf@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: lundi 4 août 2014 20:11
>>> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>>> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks; Michael Richardson;
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Pascal
>>>>
>>>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
>>>> Sent: samedi 2 août 2014 22:57
>>>> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
>>>> Cc: Michael Richardson; ipv6@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 2, 2014, at 4:48 PM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)"
>>> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> That sounds right, Michael,
>>>>
>>>> I agree that "updates 6437" is a right thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> though slightly on the overkill side.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree that it is overkill.  In my opinion, draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-
>>> for-RPL pretty clearly contradicts RFC 6437, so "updates 6437" is an
>>> appropriate action.
>>>> And this is consistent with what Brian suggested. This can be added during
>>> the rfc editor process I expect?
>>>> It should be added as soon as possible, certainly before it goes to the IESG.
>>> In my opinion, the change might warrant a new or extended WGLC; that
>>> action is up to the chairs, of course.
>>>> - Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pascal
>>>>
>>>> Le 2 août 2014 à 21:09, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> a
>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> OTOH you need to understand that there is no need for a bis to update
>>>> a MUST in an RFC. We recognize the imperfection in our work and are
>>>> always ready to revise and amend after due consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this document UPDATES 6437 then?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software
>>> Works
>>>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Roll mailing list
>>>> Roll@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 