Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Thu, 18 June 2015 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFC61B29AB; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <IA63SRsZlMO1>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Amavis-Alert: BANNED, message contains text/plain,.exe
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IA63SRsZlMO1; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35C441AD47E; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3429; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1434646158; x=1435855758; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=/xL9x7tls5rKUqjG+PHrEzG7LrFLjCbzbkIJGqIyan8=; b=I6xMUzCOhwDT/nzYVtP6WT+WBKh359dmJfi9C2QPwS+bwFVQhdd6mLIb OS9KHOTUnXEaPAVvG0/0kvRKMw6kARe+s1zz71N5kdAvRg0nl+CyiKnOG lFLWWLvw+5fpcIxmYkbQ+g8LPrM88z0VScV0SaPpzJJzKtUQsv5O9xhki A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,640,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="160608419"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2015 16:49:17 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5IGnHn2027075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:49:17 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:49:17 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: Yusuke DOI <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration
Thread-Index: AQHQp8vRQMajtavr+EaCvSKBOhrHTp2xPa+AgAFhqYA=
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:49:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Ines Robles <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:49:20 -0000

On 6/17/15, 1:43 PM, "Yusuke DOI" <> wrote:



. . .
>> Minor:
>>  1. Section 1 (Introduction): "Some managed wireless mesh networks may
>>     have a DHCP server to configure network parameters.²  How common is
>>     the use of DHCP?  ³Some..may² doesn¹t sound like this extension will
>>     be used a lot.  How do other networks configure their parameters?
>>       I¹m assuming manually..
>I have no other experience, but I assume the configuration will be done
. . .
>>  3. Section 2.3 (MPL Forwarder Behavior)  Joining and leaving the
>>     domain.  I must be missing something..
>>       * "the node MAY join the MPL domain given by the option²  Why
>>         would the client request the Option and then not join the
>One reason is resource constraint. As joining to a MPL domain requires
>certain amount of buffers allocated, a node may fail to join all of the
>domains given by the option.

The use of ³MAY² above gives the impression that joining is optional.  But
you¹re saying that even if the node wants to join it may not be able to,
which is different.



   If a DHCPv6 client requests and receives MPL Parameter Configuration
   Option, the node MAY join the MPL domain given by the option and act
   as an MPL forwarder.


   If a DHCPv6 client requests and receives MPL Parameter Configuration
   Option, the node SHOULD join the MPL domain given by the option and act
   as an MPL forwarder.  Note that there may be cases in which a node may
   fail is to join a domain (or domains) due to local resource constraints.

I¹m not sure if you/the WG want to add something else to that paragraph..

>>       * "A node MAY leave from an MPL domain..²  The conditions seem to
>>         say that the domain in the Option changed, is that true?  If the
>>         domain in the option changed, why would the node not leave the
>>         domain?
>There's no reason except the domain is configured manually at the same
>time (the first condition is not met). If there are a manual
>configuration, implementation may consider it's overriding the DHCPv6
>Is this clear?:
>A node SHOULD leave from a MPL domain if the node received a new option
>without configuration for the MPL domain, unless it has overriding
>external configuration on the MPL domain.

How about this instead:


   A node SHOULD leave an MPL domain if it receives an updated
   MPL Parameter Configuration Option without a configuration for the
   MPL domain, unless it has overriding external configuration.

I¹m not sure if ³external² is the right word..or if ³manual² might be
better.  Look at the point #1 above about how other nodes may be

In this section (2.3) there¹s a priority of configuration shown:

   The priority of MPL Parameter Configuration applied for an MPL Domain
   is as follows (high to low).

   o  Specific MPL Parameter Configuration to the MPL Domain (optlen=34)

   o  Wildcard MPL Parameter Configuration (optlen=18)

   o  Default configuration given in the MPL specification.

But there is no mention anywhere in the document to external/manual
configuration.  Where in that priority list should it fit?