IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] some comments on draft-thubert-dao-projection-00.txt

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 08 July 2015 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
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 5487E1A03A1 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MpW5AeVc1s7C for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26DEF1A03A0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1036; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1436372695; x=1437582295; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=V3G2jFiAzh9krJBAm4zXxgU+PRzbFAlq2RzFmn7Sdcc=; b=mDzKMErPb+1dMs9R1iVSi4m3EE2JMkFIYT5ZZgFXvU8eGglIQw6/3U46 IEiE7+PPFX/IrPmk6QWFtlvGwLt214g3LRNNol0Owy6IFgx88/uacu8uO X/pbiojkwSaT/MC3sPOx9d687YZAnOlj9g/erGOsBqPSY3JW6Mw/BW/pL M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DrAwDDTZ1V/5FdJa1cgxKBNAa9SQmEMoM0AoFaOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEIwEBAQQ6SwQCAQgRBAEBCxQJBzIUCQgCBBMIiCbNegEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEZi0uENx44BoMRgRQFlCMBi36YYSaDe2+BR4EEAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,432,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="166736525"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2015 16:24:54 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t68GOrR3024092 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:24:53 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.136]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:24:53 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] some comments on draft-thubert-dao-projection-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQtl4uhnM3ZZux4UKM8k7V/iC9hJ3Lwz3sgAIjXACAA+Ej4A==
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:24:52 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:24:03 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD849F08BF4@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <20150630063630.9499.53083.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD849EF25A0@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>, <10398.1436016852@sandelman.ca> <F2C95F1F-7DF2-497E-AFF5-0711565F400C@cisco.com> <26399.1436141254@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <26399.1436141254@sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/rNks0WmOxUbFn_8fo8e38pfHl6A>
Subject: Re: [Roll] some comments on draft-thubert-dao-projection-00.txt
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: <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: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:24:55 -0000

Yes, 

segment is used a lot these days. 
In RH that's usually one loose hop between 2 entries in the RH.
Maybe projected route is better because it is more specific to what we are doing?

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: lundi 6 juillet 2015 02:08
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
> Subject: Re: [Roll] some comments on draft-thubert-dao-projection-00.txt
> 
> 
> > It would be good to make it clear which direction one counts the
> "segment"
> > to know which one is last.  I don't like "segment" here, I think it's
> > a routing path...  Could you define segment if you think it's the most
> > natural term to use.
> > (There are also some articles like "the" missing in places, btw)
> 
> I also realized yesterday that 6554/RH3, uses the term segment.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software
> Works  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email