Re: [Roll] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression

That's interesting, Brian.

We decided that for completeness of its expression of the RPL operation, the draft should provide a pointer on the way the RPL info is carried.
We need a minimum set of common stuff to interop and the way to express the RPL information is one. We can live with any default as long as everyone implements it.
Now if optionally people support additional ways to make comparisons with that reference, that would certainly be good, if the question is still open at that time.
All in all, if you agree, we can progress the draft in IESG review leaving that particular reference open to be changed till later in the process?

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]
> Sent: vendredi 19 décembre 2014 14:26
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
> Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org; int-ads@tools.ietf.org; 6tisch@ietf.org; 6lo-
> chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Roll] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression
> 
> Pascal,
> 
> On 12/19/14 6:59 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > The rush Carsten,
> >
> > is that the document that will be the base for the 6TiSCH interop test
> > in Prague is now in last call, and that document refers to the NHC
> > draft. The question is what should it refer to, and whatever it refers
> > to should be stable and implementable by now.
> 
> So, do you view the code for the interop being "set in stone"?  As Adrian pointed
> out, the interop could be a way to work out the tradeoffs of these multiple
> approaches.  That is, running code leads to an IETF specification rather than the
> other way around.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> >
> > Just the first (per your words) is just fine with me.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org]
> >> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann Sent:
> >> vendredi 19 décembre 2014 09:17 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy
> >> networks Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org; int-ads@tools.ietf.org;
> >> 6tisch@ietf.org; 6lo- chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] call
> >> for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression
> >>
> >> On 17 Dec 2014, at 09:29, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> >> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Decision in Hawaii was that the NHC draft could not be accepted as
> >>> is, since we should compress also the RH3, and without a clear view
> >>> of how that would happen, the details of the NHC compression could
> >>> not be determined. So the NHC approach was abandoned
> >>
> >> That is not at all what I recollect from Hawaii.
> >>
> >> The current smorgasbord is:
> >>
> >> — various ways to hijack the flow label (dead) — the 6553-NHC
> >> proposal — ideas for a new mesh header
> >>
> >> I’m not going to beat the dead horse of the flow label hijack.
> >>
> >> The 6553-NHC proposal mainly needs a decision between the three
> >> variants (flip a coin, if need be). If time is of the essence,
> >> 6553-NHC is the natural thing to do. We can always do an RFC 6554 NHC
> >> compression separately.
> >>
> >> The MH proposal is forward-looking and probably the right thing for
> >> the evolution of 6lo, but probably also not compatible with a tight
> >> time schedule.
> >>
> >> Now, what is the rush? RFC 6553/6554 do exist.
> >>
> >> So we get to choose between rushing 6553-NHC to completion or using
> >> 6553/6554 for now and doing the MH work right (or. more likely than
> >> just the first, both). I don’t have an opinion on wether we need to
> >> rush 6553-NHC, but if we need to rush anything, this one it is.
> >>
> >> Grüße, Carsten
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list
> >> Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll