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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 11 August 2014 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 C15E41A01DC; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 06:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 1MwI2iCiGG0m; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 06:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 576FA1A00C6; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 06:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,841,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="134723257"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Aug 2014 13:54:35 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-111-110.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-111-110.cisco.com [10.61.111.110]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7BDsYcV019128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:54:35 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1971.5\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <53E534E8.4050304@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:54:35 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F7618DE0-7217-46C2-93A1-CE050085E7AB@employees.org>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D189A1@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <406B5D64-4F0E-4E71-BC60-A113FB367652@gmail.com> <46112F69-05F0-4E50-A808-287B06AE8E5F@cs.stanford.edu> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A9FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <057EC9C6-07FF-409B-A3BC-3348A5F43AB3@gmail.com> <53E534E8.4050304@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1971.5)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/fp05GxA0sc0kY5jxtzkZ62U-_ek
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:24:12 -0700
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
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: <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: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:54:39 -0000

> 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.

cheers,
Ole