Re: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended
"roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> Wed, 12 February 2014 17:20 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 16FB91A05FD for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:20:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] 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 Lf_il--iOuRA for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:20:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6781A09A6 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:20:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44488 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1WDdTs-00053F-8y; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:20:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: roll issue tracker <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com
X-Trac-Project: roll
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:20:16 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/145#comment:2
Message-ID: <082.81f7b7f3369b1f44f007ed91609f02e0@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 145
In-Reply-To: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: 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: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:20:38 -0000
#145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08506.html From: Robert Cragie <robert.cragie at gridmerge.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:31:50 +0000 Isn't PROACTIVE_FORWARDING now a parameter per MPL Interface (based on the contested statement mentioned below, i.e. "It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Interfaces ... use the same value for PROACTIVE)? Therefore section 5.4 should just be SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME and there should be a new section "MPL Interface Parameters" Other comments inline. Robert On 10/02/2014 2:03 PM, Jonathan Hui (johui) wrote: Hi Axel, >Thanks for your review and comments. See my comments below: >>On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Axel Colin de Verdière <axel- ietf@axelcdv.com> wrote: >>I've reviewed the draft, and I have a couple comments/questions if that's not too late: >>- I don't see why MPL forwarders on the same link should have the same value for >>PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. It is now RECOMMENDED to make it so, but I don't see the rationale for this >>recommendation: on the opposite, I think it would allow some forwarders with less power >>restrictions to be more proactive than others. >Good point. If there are no objections, I can remove this RECOMMENDED statement. <RCC> I agree it is not strictly necessary but there are certain combinations of parameters which won't work. For example, if proactive forwarding is used and the CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS is 0 then a MPL Forwarder's MPL Interface which doesn't use proactive forwarding may never forward a MPL Data Message on that interface as none of its neighboring MPL Forwarders will be sending MPL Control Messages. I know Kerry had some concerns earlier regarding mutual exclusivity of proactive and reactive forwarding strategies. Introduce the wider scope through multiple interfaces and thus per-MPL Interface parameter sets makes sense but it brings in a new concept of grouping a strategy across a common set of MPL Interfaces to ensure forwarding applies correctly on those MPL Interfaces. </RCC> -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/145#comment:2> roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>
- [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACT… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACT… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACT… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACT… roll issue tracker