Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 18 September 2020 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.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 426833A0B30; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 qS4BiGx3FJGf; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E2993A0DA8; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id b12so6485663edz.11; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nWXqaUzGMJfxMrHO06y/GnLJjSisamLSEw0sIjyhr/0=; b=p5mKHRz4Q4+YgaPdM7aSZJL3BmMdCBFvMJ5xUeScHtT4ma2kkh62S4znsYEZSqSwqU HGGeM5aNyK938wZRxYI/oYcsl1U//XviEj4iJEP14Fqovfr1HJCblY9L3P2prkZ6bi89 Cjh0j/F200YWRrjwAOLkWUxtDp4eCyLiqMbwpvk4eFJqvaZwf2cVHzhVbNll7rPb9NFQ AGEpmAL3nz2ZtMoXmy+n3FgUawRywcFeGQQrFWNmSEv6z4F5jM6EJRaKUjTy0xo9hvOj tn/84YZBWIGV+XCk5u2L9VLYTbVVRP5mPgcuby5IQZpTiKKKrPe01s5aRwMwGu0gCq8j tdFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nWXqaUzGMJfxMrHO06y/GnLJjSisamLSEw0sIjyhr/0=; b=jjJEiq3kDKFqV0TPRIytGqge1LKrUYa5Z4pk6QCBxHOmmc2Xf4bCBSkhmlA/W9HZW4 jIE+1F961EyjNoV/JdjzzZ4nzWs8tKkor25RWEgbYP/CqD1rzVaHzzwIFe1S6K59HZSZ ltxu1InxVVXUtSVYvyMLxtBCuC7nl4UGOz++trHZ/LN+MCAvDz85OZEoa/B6QXJC/iN5 I1tIhshw4rdC8Hkg50B5Dr6Tz6SDNnXAiNTHaAm3+DXdFI2ZHmP0IqtKeA3VJHQDDssy Bc7JXXDu6Gu7kn4/LvPeTItHOvsx4DJAVrWqn/ek8ZtIrbu8+5zwloH1bJqRVY6RaXHQ j3Uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vkF95R0vfMB5Rj+jV1RZ6rnR6LUzFFaj7xTUT4LI3DEgJw5rR bhFslbLF9UWrlJJdNf8cYN13NvpRiZV0BgZK+wkI6IZl
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzDccf1gymnZjq+hBOYZLeQOFLEwWvtyyrS6GwVCGIZUP4mZml+MqsRSxViXTIsTsK3ax4g2CB2TIMRqsHWMmc=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ca46:: with SMTP id j6mr38792418edt.155.1600444034765; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:47:14 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565F2602A0DC55DE9FF3604D83F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <159968972884.1065.3876077471852624744@ietfa.amsl.com> <MN2PR11MB35659A0710E687A7C9995E6ED8270@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200910200744.GE89563@kduck.mit.edu> <17053.1599841430@localhost> <20200911162617.GQ89563@kduck.mit.edu> <8F19C753-DCA0-4A32-BA3B-A124B2F7F745@cisco.com> <MN2PR11MB3565F2602A0DC55DE9FF3604D83F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:47:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESswYqh_XdHMkQRCzKrJAdj_iH1DOuz7qy+RFiECUwK6OnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, "roll-chairs@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002cdaa205af986a23"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/jlKeftfwt_PuHtlnaN_2MakxSNo>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:47:19 -0000

[Cutting the list a little.]

Pascal:

Hi!

I think we should talk live about this — if there’s time on the Interim
(Inés?), then maybe we can do it there since the RPLv2 topic seems to be on
the agenda.  Or we could do it before — give me a couple of options for
next week.  It would be ideal to have you, Michael and one of the Chairs,
at least, on the call — we can of course open the call to anyone once we
figure out a time that works.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On September 18, 2020 at 10:15:24 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
pthubert@cisco.com) wrote:

Hello Benjamin and Alvaro

I published the latest to have a fresh reference point.

There seems to be an agreement that
1) we need to tell the implementer what to do when MOP ==7
2) The changes are updating RFC 6550 formally.

This is reflected in draft 15 as published.

Please let me know if I mossed something!

Take care,

Pascal

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Sent: vendredi 11 septembre 2020 21:17
> To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
> Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>ca>; Routing Over Low power
> and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>rg>; roll-chairs@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana
> <aretana.ietf@yahoo.com>om>; Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>om>;
> draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on
draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-
> 14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> Now I’m unsure Michael and I agree anymore.
>
> What will today’s developer code?
>
> We ask him to test if mop is < 7
>
> What value will the developer place in his code if the test returns
false?
>
> If there is no code the Boolean will be uninitialized and the result will
depend
> on the type of variable and the compiler.
>
> Whatever the developer does the code will end up having a behavior,
> compression or not.
>
> Leaving it to the implementation will have some people choose true and
> others false. This is not what we want.
>
> We want to control what the code does so we can expect it in the future
and
> build our backward compatibility based on that sure knowledge.
>
> Before the draft the default was no compression. Quite naturally since
initially
> it did not exist.
>
> Also we discussed on the ML that for RPLv2 all implementations MUST
support
> the compression.
>
> In which case it is a better default for a coder today to decide to use
the
> compression for mop 7, isn’t it?
>
> I hope I make the case right. Just think you’re coding it!
>
> Take care,
>
> Pascal
>
> > Le 11 sept. 2020 à 18:26, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> a écrit :
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:23:50PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >>
> >> Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> >>> to MOPs 0..6; but the situation for MOP 7 seems slightly different.
> >>> If we were *just* leaving the bit undefined/free for reuse in that
> >>> situation, that is probably also something that we can do in a
> >>> normal "allocate a bit from an IANA registry" document without need
for
> Updates.
> >>
> >> Up to here, we agree.
> >>
> >>> But that's not
> >>> all we're doing; we're also saying that if you see MOP==7, then you
> >>> have to use the 8138
> >>> header/compression/whatever-we-end-up-calling-it. Yet we are
> >>> *not* allocating MOP==7.
> >>
> >> Tthat's exactly what we don't want to do.
> >>
> >> We are saying NOTHING about rfc8138 when MOP==7.
> >> Nor are we saying that the T-bit exists (or doesn't exist).
> >
> > That's not how I read:
> >
> > For a MOP value of 7, the compression MUST be used by default
> > regardless of the setting of the "T" flag.
> >
> >
> >> What behaviour is default and what behaviour is negotiated, and how
> >> it it negotiated, and how the results are turned on, would be up to a
> >> document that specifies MOP=7 (or larger mopex)
> >
> > What you describe here is more along the lines of what I expected.
> >
> > -Ben
> >
> >> As an analogy, when we did the ToS->DSCP + bits-that-became-ECN
> >> change, we did this for IP_version==4 and IP_version==6.
> >> We specifically did not change it for IP_version==7 or 8.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting
)
> >> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> >>
> >
> >