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

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian:

The question to 6MAN is really whether the use that the draft makes of the flow label within the RPL domain is acceptable or not. In particular Section 1.3 does not force a particular usage of the flow label inside the LLN, it simply updates the rules of what is allowed and what is not within that domain, knowing that the root will set the label properly towards the Internet and reset it from the Internet.

It is up to ROLL and other external standards adopting the work (ISA100, WCI) to decide of its usefulness. 

Cheers,

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: mercredi 13 août 2014 01:39
> To: Ines Robles
> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks; 6man WG
> Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
> 
> Ines,
> 
> Can you perhaps clarify the exact question you are asking 6man?
> 
> (I'm thinking that 6man isn't being asked whether the number of bits saved
> is a useful energy saving, or whether Carsten's proposal is better.)
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 12/08/2014 19:15, Ines Robles wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On April, it was discussed and got consensus in ROLL [
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08634.html].
> >
> > This technique saves bytes, as was demonstrated by Xavier in his
> > implementation [ start on Slide 41 -
> >
> https://bytebucket.org/6tisch/meetings/raw/712902bb451d113494a7045e97
> 30f1bb50335a79/140720_ietf90_plugfest_toronto/ietf90_toronto_plugfest_s
> lides.pdf].
> > Maybe we should enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of using
> it.
> > (Some of these are tracked in ticket #5, #6 and #7).
> >
> >
> > Anyway, demostratedIt needs the 6man approval to go forward.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ines
> >
> >
> > 2014-08-11 23:26 GMT+03:00 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]>:
> >
> >> On 12/08/2014 01:54, Ole Troan wrote:
> >>>> I *really* don't think RFCs are algorithms to the point where we
> >>>> need to do this. I see no reason why flow-label-for-rpl can't
> >>>> simply declare itself an exception to this clause of RFC 6437.
> >>> I must admit I'm uncomfortable with this draft and its approach. how
> >>> can
> >> we be sure that we aren't opening a Pandora's box?
> >>> I'm worried that we set a precedence, and we'll see a new set of
> >> creative proposals for the use of these 20 bits.
> >>
> >> Well, that has been the case for a long time: see RFC 6294.
> >>
> >> I see the concern. Actually that's why I don't want to see a formal
> >> update to 6437, because the only rational update would be to allow
> >> any closed domain to invent its own usage. We had that argument at
> >> length during the development of 6437, and decided against it.
> >> Therefore, treating RPL as a special case is the remaining option.
> >> But does the ROLL community actually have consensus that they want
> >> this special case?
> >>
> >>    Brian
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Roll mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> >>
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------