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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 16 June 2015 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 BC3FA1B353D; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 06:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 0xdQ4I_FFmEl; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 06:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 981C61B3544; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 06:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90028200A1; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:49:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 45E5363B10; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:35:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336C063AE8; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:35:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)" <aretana@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1A4F4BA.B8391%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <D1A4F4BA.B8391%aretana@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:35:07 -0400
Message-ID: <8572.1434461707@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/qdLYClQOFkGh79JEUNdAgfXnSHQ>
Cc: "roll-chairs@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, Ines Robles <maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:35:46 -0000

Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
    > I just finished reading this document.

    > I think the document is almost ready to move forward — I have one
    > major comment (below) related to sending the Option as it relates to
    > the potential of mismatched options. I am going to start the IETF Last
    > Call, but expect at least a discussion about that comment before
    > putting the draft in front of the IESG.

Do you mean, if different parts of the network have different parameters?
I had that same question, and I asked it here:
  https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/157

    > rfc6206 talks about “unintended behaviors”). This document says
    > (Section 2.4) that "the server will send MPL Parameter Configuration
    > Option only if configured…and the client requested it”..and (Section
    > 2.2) says that a client "MAY request MPL Parameter Configuration
    > Option”. In summary, the server won’t send the Option unless the
    > client requests it; is that what is intended? Furthermore, the
    > request is optional (I’m assuming there may be resource
    > considerations here), so there may be cases in which not all clients
    > request the Option, resulting in potentially mismatched parameters.

Clients that don't ask for the option probably don't support it....

    > Am I interpreting the text correctly? If so, why was it specified
    > this way (instead of having the server send the Option (when
    > configured for a specific MPL Domain) always? Does the client then
    > require configuration to be able to request the additional
    > configuration parameters?

That's mostly how DHCPv6 works.  The client sends a list of options it
cares about, and the server answers them.  That seems the right thing to
do with constrained nodes on a challenged network.

    > * Instead, I would like to see some discussion about it in the
    > Operational Considerations section. Pointing to rfc6206 may be
    > enough to remind people who are implementing this Option.
    > * Related to this point: I recommend moving the discussion in
    > Appendix B to the Operational Considerations section.

okay.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/