IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] turnon-8138 review

"Li Zhao (liz3)" <liz3@cisco.com> Mon, 08 July 2019 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <liz3@cisco.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 2D9181200D8; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.489
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=fga5Qpi+; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=dUKNObmM
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 uUwMwghJFT1Z; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDD5B1200D7; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12711; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562550735; x=1563760335; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ZztG+LuVf6Ang3iy7sDqVL+P7A/O3Gu0DJU8CNkyYPM=; b=fga5Qpi+RWS00ljkUnJroz/ldIDTZY12Sjq75HzvND/JdxP6empwRBoH 8GNLfXnjCTX7jBh/TUpNCnboy5SHgbw8vLJ/VqZxXhiFsLqpCh7LZyYMi zJgfTFeWIuUmsZKNnnp/iTnKSgAmzzB62KbjVTVCwxkpQ9mUOUPvwdHMh M=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:tOCgdxFc6mLYb4+29OryAp1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7IYmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4w0Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0ETBoZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBj/LeyxRyc7B89FElRi+iLzPA==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AIAADHoCJd/4gNJK1bChoBAQEBAQIBAQEBBwIBAQEBgVMFAQEBAQsBgRQvUANqVSAECygKg1JAg0cDhFKJdoJbknKEVIEuFIEQA1QJAQEBDAEBJQgCAQGEQAIXghcjNAkOAQMBAQQBAQIBBW2KNwyFSgEBAQQMBhEdAQE3AQ8CAQYCEQMBAisCAgIwHQgBAQQBDQUigwABgR1NAx0BAgyKP5BgAoE4iGBxgTKCeQEBBYFGQYJzGIISAwaBNAGEcYZtghaBOB+CTD6CYQEBAgEBgTIPBTcNgl0ygiaBMQGNPoR9lmkGAwKCF4ZWjS4bgiyHIY4xjTCBMIYQj30CBAIEBQIOAQEFgVA4gVhwegFzgU6CQQeDaoUUhT9yAYEoi1oBgSABAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,464,1557187200"; d="scan'208,217";a="291919512"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 08 Jul 2019 01:52:14 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x681qBjx025579 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 01:52:14 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 20:52:13 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 20:52:12 -0500
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 21:52:12 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ZztG+LuVf6Ang3iy7sDqVL+P7A/O3Gu0DJU8CNkyYPM=; b=dUKNObmM+fJJotAXZn+nHYH/B58XGL47eXzrQ8BgMggZCDkmaAvKwPDWmeyJFYdIqfll5IzPgnqhWXdQi4e/B+W5nZY4XF31P5H7dcv8dNMbUj72x28IkLwz1Jr4/5XkKTra5AtEHgtoPUssviNz53qmOpcHDrqmaz1sLaKQxQk=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3680.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.252.96) by MN2PR11MB4189.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.179.150.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2052.19; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 01:52:11 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3680.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4815:c3d4:9fce:2d52]) by MN2PR11MB3680.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4815:c3d4:9fce:2d52%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2052.020; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 01:52:11 +0000
From: "Li Zhao (liz3)" <liz3@cisco.com>
To: Rahul Arvind Jadhav <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com>, "draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org" <draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org>
CC: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: turnon-8138 review
Thread-Index: AdU1IIlA6w1MYnH1Rd6eOKlcXhIIwAAUkYsA
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 01:52:11 +0000
Message-ID: <B1550524-A197-41E6-83B5-0626BD1952CB@cisco.com>
References: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF34E04@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF34E04@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=liz3@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [64.104.125.239]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5e00c109-a631-4995-4a36-08d70346e4a9
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB4189;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4189:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 6
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB41894E0FAC340B8B2829FDF08CF60@MN2PR11MB4189.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 00922518D8
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(346002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(26005)(186003)(2906002)(102836004)(53546011)(6506007)(99286004)(76176011)(71190400001)(81166006)(71200400001)(8936002)(81156014)(11346002)(446003)(2616005)(8676002)(486006)(2501003)(476003)(14454004)(7736002)(66066001)(256004)(14444005)(68736007)(6116002)(478600001)(3846002)(606006)(6246003)(4326008)(25786009)(33656002)(53936002)(66446008)(91956017)(316002)(110136005)(236005)(6512007)(54896002)(6306002)(229853002)(6486002)(6436002)(86362001)(36756003)(73956011)(66946007)(76116006)(66556008)(5660300002)(66476007)(64756008)(88722002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4189; H:MN2PR11MB3680.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: dQne5EAJ5fLy+a3sn/VE/BC3T5Uc9IoL2jyeluuIbTRF1oCf7VyNuW8c8ocebsOcwsoxTD9L/g4b2TQENHsgFUpwGHfodkgA4wauaTineaEI8CazWwnhvhbRFARw/NpmLY36ymqdellFn+oZOVU4scZjT9+1/31J4ji7pmyNAFzeKP29q0cRTGx8pwIwhiJl2R/O4WTOMoDS9vYc5+zRi82qfRdpCmeQTLVw9O+kq/AgPKMTXLtGwFJ+wNKsIzPIx59WJE/tuQFBo//1xPSLbghFaYzVPO1M/Dtf2++3/ASYxLad97npXbfqkHLBqEDzu4EdpY/dAyUWTbqkxYQtOdFhwaJDtUzBMY4CZGM6doB+GFzsAM2GL+0W8O8BkrhjzsHJ+KGC2lDb4JgFStyjmhCp7LkhyiygkLBvpKGnjkY=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B1550524A19741E683B50626BD1952CBciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5e00c109-a631-4995-4a36-08d70346e4a9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Jul 2019 01:52:11.2469 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: liz3@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4189
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.20, xch-aln-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/c4_f0EfBEJD2vj7qzV9Uai_1V7Q>
Subject: Re: [Roll] turnon-8138 review
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 01:52:19 -0000

Thank you Rahul for the reviewing. Please find my reply [LZ] inline.

Best regards,
Li


From: Rahul Arvind Jadhav <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com>
Date: Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:40 AM
To: "draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org" <draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: turnon-8138 review
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent-To: <pthubert@cisco.com>, Li Zhao <liz3@cisco.com>
Resent-Date: Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:40 AM

Hello Authors,

Following is my review of draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-02:

Section 5.4. “Rolling Back”, says, the administrator SHOULD make sure that all nodes have converged to the “T” flag reset before allowing nodes that do not support the compression in the network.
[RJ] How would a root know that all the nodes have accepted the T-reset? Doesn't this require use of capability flag ? Also I’m not sure if the same capability flag used before can be used here?
[LZ]Yes. This requires use of  capability flag. I think there is no capability flag before to identify the T-reset. One option is using reserving flag in DAO base object. Another option is leveraging draft-rahul-roll-mop-ext<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rahul-roll-mop-ext/>
Section 5.3. “Double Instance Scenario”, says that nodes that do not support 8138 would either not be configured for the new instance, or would be configured to join it as leaves only.
[RJ] Thus I believe there is some non-RPL management involved to tell the legacy nodes to not join the Instance-with-T-flag.
[LZ] Agree. Section 5 has listed an example method with “Sections 8.5<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-02#section-8.5> and 9.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-02#section-9.2> of [RFC6550<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6550>]”.

Section 5.2. “Single Instance Scenario”, The root encapsulates packets to the leaves all the way to the parent, which decapsulates and distribute the uncompresses inner packet to the leaf.
[RJ] When it says encapsulate/decapsulate, it means IP-in-IP encapsulation/decapsulation, right?
[LZ] Correct. IP tunnel can be used to encapsulate packet.

Section 4. “Updating RFC 8138”
[RJ] I didn't find any updates to 8138! I believe the text in the section does not result in 8138 update.
[LZ] It means that 8138 SHOULD have enable and disable the use of 8138 compression for compatibility issue. But 8138 missed it. Thus we propose to update 8138.

Regards,
Rahul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email