Re: [Roll] nsa extension comments
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <aris@ariskou.com> Sat, 07 December 2019 10:52 UTC
Return-Path: <aris@ariskou.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 8614812018D for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 02:52:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailfence.com header.b=lY7vC9t3; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ariskou.com header.b=gKXJpWTL
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 o94bxiH4SFHr for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 02:52:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com (mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com [212.3.242.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A67A0120142 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 02:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpauth1.co-bxl (smtpauth1.co-bxl [10.2.0.15]) by mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE1515AF for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 11:52:49 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailfence.com; s=20160819-nLV10XS2; t=1575715969; bh=zQrWeesu2lIITNZQCP6jZGAFzQkpad4/I3iPZkHtAXE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:From; b=lY7vC9t3kiE3NeNx5+gZCbRwaVilR6VA43aZ5CVACYf7zJlKyenj7em7YJZrq2A65 5uDKkIVRr4GckVhfUFUobSXwyewPzNvqBJOvSIS1WO8qsvMvlau6vZFzO7VqlGIkEB KkocdaBx9b0kjx6OzhkwgD6/qjkDXJWT9c/pIYo0StaqkgkIHSr3qNIXPacXJK1SBR nuXznKteIMO/Ab3vrsiRACLb6PL96iR9jA8uA/HXY1cpL2XcormPjCSJs05RyarDut Q5xXBanpOk0nmu6ILOmHOs/0KZ73WunYwqKVsEkxtB3lAcd0qful4+M1Z1nrTDGXiD 3YfKb/qBV+lZg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1575715969; s=20191001-wvim; d=ariskou.com; i=aris@ariskou.com; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Content-Type; l=7472; bh=zQrWeesu2lIITNZQCP6jZGAFzQkpad4/I3iPZkHtAXE=; b=gKXJpWTLRpYRFgUykvlsfHYwyH6+agdRuByES3B9cvvaWsr2YniR1DR0+rfKiMf/ iXN3NGFNANIaS+NHvL9G9lRsTCsDhDB34Rn3kUwICgXWWC8HMTzTeSWk5IzaNKAEE/9 tOkMtLgWNXbAuNYTVG5cd+d9oLwL/UZ+ui+CCGUzQX/tGJleWyLoGyh6PlRfn+D/Oun 9l/YCIz2Lyr1KWyPdXotxjZZasys3IGrTSi4U12FoB9W7wrO1A65q+e/qaQj5lF3twI eZey5rT9+2rgb36PgHUv29/NZT1ghDi1asQ6EHCyY5xRfusNZSAgYTHIf65cYc+JVFu A6G5jJjbEQ==
Received: by smtp.mailfence.com with ESMTPA for <roll@ietf.org> ; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 11:52:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-io1-f51.google.com with SMTP id v18so10007024iol.2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 Dec 2019 02:52:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV5ntc4q7NoheuqqALfT0pCWoyghge8gbuMr+Gda2N0lO2K6gaQ f0FeGlheL0Q5iMrhRtUSjiwH3eG9auHwv52b3uI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzr3sMZTsiPVsDKXHrlT9qyP2+to/3PUwdUDgbirSuM/OkWO/Kus9e3WbWqMu/V/rAc9wfsXX5v8z553sD12h4=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:a599:: with SMTP id b25mr36599jam.71.1575715964029; Sat, 07 Dec 2019 02:52:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAO0Djp1p9m7KK-r+zAYhOXFf8NGxTxxtcmhjWPgv4VeEvo_cOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp1p9m7KK-r+zAYhOXFf8NGxTxxtcmhjWPgv4VeEvo_cOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <aris@ariskou.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 11:52:47 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAK76PrnHyxPzVfWp0GGmfDVUhchBDY1-SYmStppYgcQmVSVYoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK76PrnHyxPzVfWp0GGmfDVUhchBDY1-SYmStppYgcQmVSVYoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004d91e005991af61d"
X-ContactOffice-Account: com:113819248
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/n3K7eUimhL7Og_sbXXsA405MInM>
Subject: Re: [Roll] nsa extension comments
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: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 10:52:55 -0000
Hello Rahul, thank you very much for the commens and editing. We'll go through everything and update here. Best, Aris On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 9:06 AM Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello authors, > > I have pushed my PR[1] to the corresponding roll-wg repo. However, there > are other > points which require your attention. Following are my comments: > > o Carrying TLVs in NSA > RFC 6551 explains that an NSA can be used to carry TLVs but it falls short > of > specifying the format for these TLVs. This document assumes the format of > 8-bit > type and 8-bit length. This format is fine but future specifications will > have > to refer to this document if they got to add new TLVs. Thus the generic TLV > format should be made part of different section and an IANA registry needs > to > be created for the NSA TLV type. > > o Preference in PS set > The document assumes that the parent addresses in the PS set have been > added in > the decreasing order of preference, without making it explicit. The PS IPv6 > address(es) field requires an explanation in Section 4. > > o DIO length > As per the draft, the DIO needs to carry NSA (Node State and Attributes) > metric > with PS (parent set) TLV. As per my understanding without compression, it > would > be a challenge to carry even two parent addresses in the PS. There has > been a > discussion about compression and as I remember we discussed doing it. > Regardless, I feel we should do it if we want this to be a practical > proposition. > > o Section 3.4 Usage: > "For example, using different methods can be used to vary the transmission > reliability in each hop." > This statement implies that using different CA policy implementation can > "control" the transmission reliability. As I understand, the strict policy > is > the best policy (in terms of all performance metrics), the nodes will go > for > other policy only when the strict policy cannot be used given their parent > sets. > The above statement implies that nodes may still go for a relaxed policy > when > strict can be used. > > o Configuration parameters > The document specifies configuration parameters such as > a. PARENT_SET_SIZE ... Not defined > b. cur_ap_min_path_cost: How can the cur_ap_min_path_cost be equated with > PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD as mentioned in section 3.2.2 > c. MAX_PATH_COST: No definition for this. > The parameters warrant a rationale and a default value. Also more > importantly, > is it required that different nodes use the same value and if not what > could be > the impact. > > o Terminology section > Terminology section should explain Alternative Parent, Parent Set, > Preferred > Grand Parent. > > o Section realignment > It is better to explain CA Strict/Medium/Relax policies before explaining > the > CAOF because as a reader one needs to be familiar with these policies > before > understanding the OF. > > Regards, > Rahul > > [1] https://github.com/roll-wg/draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension/pull/1 > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >
- [Roll] nsa extension comments Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] nsa extension comments Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis
- Re: [Roll] nsa extension comments Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis
- Re: [Roll] nsa extension comments Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] nsa extension comments Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis