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

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

On 6/17/15, 1:43 PM, "Yusuke DOI" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Yusuke:

Hi!

. . .
>> 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
>manually...
. . .
>
>>  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
>>domain?
>
>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.

Suggestion:

OLD>

   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.


NEW>

   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
>Option.
>
>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:

NEW>

   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
configured.

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?

Thanks!

Alvaro.