IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 13 August 2014 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
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 1FD8D1A07C0; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 02:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 lOjyM-oGmHBV; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 02:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 244F61A86E6; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 02:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3229; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407923647; x=1409133247; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Wy0+wT8UH/s+sCZFCRT5OA/9ijdU+xj/U3zyQCViaoU=; b=Bfc8jVF7ipc1gOYjQRYL61FcgRRYqs6oO3X7j87jQSfqoxyoYt6RC8/F xlCAb1EyC5d6A9AZ1A35LOWyp/E7G582LaI4q8JXQfxDmynkYjkyBgzCf tFdt1B2ATX9gBG+s4I3LTCq0bgjLdKSaImza44mzrf1eR+Qv+VF2UWeUy A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFAJg061OtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABaDoJ/gSkE1G0BgRQWd4QDAQEBBHkMBAIBCA4DBAEBAQodByERFAkIAQEEDgUIiCYDEcA2DYVDF40fgVYJHTEHBoMpgR0FimOGOokOkFmGM4MaQmyBB0E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,856,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="68847867"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2014 09:54:05 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7D9s4pl027789 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:54:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.56]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 04:54:04 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
Thread-Index: Ac+wDejPSf6MzwEzQpSdG5woHqaOoAAAz3YlABynPRAAgwPkgAETF4SQ
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:54:03 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:53:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3A68F@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
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> <23EA0E40-A503-4F7E-A4A9-7A33D43A215D@cs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <23EA0E40-A503-4F7E-A4A9-7A33D43A215D@cs.stanford.edu>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.49.80.52]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/mtfupbrJOa-kE2rlRuocn9pVBTs
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:54:08 -0000

Works for me, 

thanks, Phil.

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Levis [mailto:pal@cs.stanford.edu]
> Sent: jeudi 7 août 2014 19:35
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: Ralph Droms; Michael Richardson; Routing Over Low power and Lossy
> networks; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
> 
> Seems reasonable to me, although a bit cumbersome. I'd suggest
> 
>   This document updates the IPv6
>   Flow Label Specification [RFC6437], which stipulates that once the Flow
>   Label is set, forwarding nodes do not update it unless there are compelling
>   security reasons to do so. This document argues that saving energy in LLNs
>   is another sufficiently compelling reason to modify the Flow Label.
> 
> Phil
> 
> On Aug 5, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> > I think I see what you are saying, Phil.
> >
> > I can split 1.3 to isolate the deviations to 6437.
> >
> > I also need to move the following text from section 3 in that new
> > section
> >
> >  This may seem contradictory with the IPv6
> >   Flow Label Specification [RFC6437] which stipulates that once it is
> >   set, the Flow Label is left unchanged; but the RFC also indicates a
> >   violation to the rule can be accepted for compelling reasons, and
> >   that security is a case justifying such a violation.  This
> >   specification suggests that energy-saving is another compelling
> >   reason for a violation to the aforementioned rule.
> >
> > Proposed update for that text:
> >
> >   This specification updates the IPv6
> >   Flow Label Specification [RFC6437], which stipulates that once it is
> >   set, the Flow Label is left unchanged. [RFC6437] also indicates that
> >   a violation to the rule can be accepted for compelling reasons,
> >   but limit those compelling reasons to security related issues.  This
> >   specification indicates that energy-saving is another compelling
> >   reason that justifies a violation to the aforementioned rule.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Philip Levis [mailto:pal@cs.stanford.edu]
> >> Sent: lundi 4 août 2014 20:23
> >> To: Ralph Droms
> >> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Michael Richardson; Routing Over Low
> >> power and Lossy networks; ipv6@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 2:01 PM 8/4/14, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> >> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The change is now done, Ralph.
> >>>>
> >>>> The only difference between
> >>>> draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03 and
> >> draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-04 is
> >>>>
> >>>> Updates: 6437 (if approved)
> >>>
> >>> I suggest adding a section to your doc that explains exactly what is
> >>> being
> >> updated in RFC 6437.
> >>>
> >>> - Ralph
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree. I think some of the text in 1.3 can be re-used for this purpose.
> >>
> >> Phil

v2.20.3 | Report a Bug | By Email