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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Fri, 19 December 2014 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 9A1221AC40B; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 05:25:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 sUCZbGVd-doW; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 05:25:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0BB51A1AC6; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 05:25:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C458812D; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 05:25:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034A071C0002; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 05:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54942758.6090705@innovationslab.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:25:44 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC2314@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <184B78CA-953E-45AB-B00C-B3A12CFE4605@tzi.org> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC7D04@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848AC7D04@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="iag1oLwpPv5XB2LI1FiK74BOP438lOdBB"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/mOBivfbogTAgThJeBLZXn9QI_4I
Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "int-ads@tools.ietf.org" <int-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression
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: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:25:47 -0000

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