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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 11 August 2014 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 D011C1A0002; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 B9y-KyjDNWLL; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22f.google.com (mail-pd0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F7AA1A013B; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id r10so11222975pdi.6 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6JFg7k7qbRCwyF0PghWdOOmyeOMe5+KS3o+Mlb9w+Tw=; b=OHP0/VsFyh/+cYdAW+IxSma7RKIr8JkX22uF4PZH+CZLoKL0J3lwE7UY8V0vYYq7dx RF24mmQyztWoQ1FRLMe+/NjTruc/sA3BTbxhx6sQyXRUr4TYXWYQcrgxm0uJh7WkqIwO RK+GZHXxK6sb5wXLGpQDJbDVnt3eiXPN0Rvq8lviEhPpIv5pnVD+fTWwb58+0SXhpUYT bpYsdZ9xIVWVwgtgSGM5MzxQymGJU3/NzoR9ivTLLTbPF9rcC8bUi8CiJNXCWDklcnpc EYtsVBUFmoJmtm5gkbg5yqqEZaJOXw3Phjy4B2BK6e2WzwRjCuzSs5F6hwb6mZ6qSvTe MNDA==
X-Received: by 10.68.106.66 with SMTP id gs2mr76758pbb.141.1407788782157; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (110.199.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.199.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dr9sm18824938pdb.78.2014.08.11.13.26.19 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53E926EB.9000505@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:26:19 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
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> <057EC9C6-07FF-409B-A3BC-3348A5F43AB3@gmail.com> <53E534E8.4050304@gmail.com> <F7618DE0-7217-46C2-93A1-CE050085E7AB@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <F7618DE0-7217-46C2-93A1-CE050085E7AB@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/n3IR-pUOFy20w_Spn_LROsfwlTY
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, 6man WG <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: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:26:24 -0000

On 12/08/2014 01:54, Ole Troan wrote:
>> I *really* don't think RFCs are algorithms to the point where we
>> need to do this. I see no reason why flow-label-for-rpl can't simply
>> declare itself an exception to this clause of RFC 6437.
> 
> I must admit I'm uncomfortable with this draft and its approach. how can we be sure that we aren't opening a Pandora's box?
> I'm worried that we set a precedence, and we'll see a new set of creative proposals for the use of these 20 bits.

Well, that has been the case for a long time: see RFC 6294.

I see the concern. Actually that's why I don't want to see a formal
update to 6437, because the only rational update would be to allow
any closed domain to invent its own usage. We had that argument at
length during the development of 6437, and decided against it.
Therefore, treating RPL as a special case is the remaining option.
But does the ROLL community actually have consensus that they want
this special case?

   Brian