Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo version 5

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 18 July 2016 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 344B712B01E for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 h00uoRYajZxB for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F69512B00D for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75AE200A7; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D809638D1; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <b268c6cd48da4e1e36d74fef809684ee@xs4all.nl>
References: <b9e569f12a008245ef824e340f510dff@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUdq=sTA5XW4wX5NAoNor+sBv0HMjV1dXG63ffh=1EOCHQ@mail.gmail.com> <30186.1468852489@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <b268c6cd48da4e1e36d74fef809684ee@xs4all.nl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:16:05 -0400
Message-ID: <27336.1468869365@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/mnmJNqqy4ant81rFV5kHiGU8-rg>
Cc: Kovatsch Matthias <kovatsch@inf.ethz.ch>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo version 5
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <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, 18 Jul 2016 19:16:08 -0000

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>; wrote:
    >> (unless we mandate that the E flag is
    >> propogated all the way upwards), then the root has to always use
    >> hop-by-hop IPIP for both 5.2 and 5.3, because the root can't tell
    >> which situation is in play.

    > I thought that this was a good occasion to point that out in the
    > rplinfo document.

Noting that this issue goes away with rfc2460bis... but assuming that wasn't
the case...

if we need to clarify that the E flag is sent upwards, then we *can* say that
in useofrplinfo, because it was designed to be standards track *UPDATE* to
RFC6550.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-