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

I totally agree that the document leaves the question open of whether there could be future uses. The use of the flow label in that way doesn't go against the spirit of the document and so we shouldn't reject the idea out of principle. But it does go against the letter of the document -- hence the need for an Updates: or other explicit note that this is the case.

Phil

On Aug 5, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Anand SVR <anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The discussion has been very interesting, more so because it is bordering on the legality of the usage of the word MUST. I agree with Philip's take on this. But after reading the RFC, I got this impression that the RFC meant to be a facility or a feature with certain usage guidelines. The MUST usage is more to imply stronger than SHOULD so as to discourage people from modifying it. I suppose at the time of writing, the authors might not have foreseen that in some point in future the value can be changed for other reasons. Therefore the use of MUST MUST be taken with the right spirit it is meant to be taken rather than literally :) 
> 
> Anand
> 
> 
>> On 05-Aug-2014, at 1:41 pm, "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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> 
>> -- 
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 