Re: [Roll] [dhcwg] MPL config draft (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-01.txt)

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 08 July 2014 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@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 159281A0076; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 cadLlR9LfvXg; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:59:10 -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 28C851A005D; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2546; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1404853152; x=1406062752; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=MbdbfHrGgvfl6F8aEVP8N9CiNyKA/89mp6jyvO4EFho=; b=CiZXvE9fj8aUCS+9UGSjpXPwhrnlU2LtZyziQh2McuEWg3jdOKpDi/hU 4CgbSavCYUZNEtvRYNmVBwQUwySeOMtqQoTnWolAT06bu3sNnJdFnxkFq YSlS3VrClQwW3WEfkN+XC08+MIOdFcqQwsD2JTKq6WgKmDqaI7cVh6FJV I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEFACdbvFOtJA2M/2dsb2JhbABagw6BLMZQAYEaFnWEAwEBAQMBOj8FBwQCAQgRBAEBAQoUBQQHMhQJCAIEAQ0FCIgyCMd6F4l6hGUVHSYLBwaDJ4EWAQSvAoIBgUKCMA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,627,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="59255687"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2014 20:59:12 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s68Kx9do031698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 8 Jul 2014 20:59:09 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.176]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:59:09 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] MPL config draft (Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-01.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHPmgEd2TBAYfQHIEyalFuCcQCzlpuU2QvAgAFLFYCAAIOPsA==
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 20:59:08 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B5EC66C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <20140701155803.14047.81610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53BA92D9.3000606@toshiba.co.jp> <CAL10_BqyWcb9_NBq2RzX7oX9g356ypYYDntVASX53q_D7Lrhdg@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B5E9CA7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <53BBA43B.3080207@toshiba.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <53BBA43B.3080207@toshiba.co.jp>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.44.70.117]
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/rurLtZV2z_FKYOLDP07ZWpmwIIg
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 22:53:55 -0700
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [dhcwg] MPL config draft (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-01.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: <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, 08 Jul 2014 20:59:12 -0000

Hi:

I don't have a great answer for you as I have no idea what the typical usages are likely to be. If there are likely to be many instances and the desire to configure most of the values (and for multiple domains), then one single option for each domain with all of the values is certainly a better idea.

I think the main points here are to:
- avoid compressing the data / developing new data types and use more standard elements (i.e., 16 or 32-bit integers) - see RFC 7227.
- group things logically (i.e., alignment of the data, while making the picture easier to draw, is not a requirement [of course we assume it is octet (byte) aligned]).

There are many ways to format this data, each with pros and cons. Making those tradeoffs is something I am not in a good position to help you with.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Yusuke DOI [mailto:yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 3:57 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz); Andre Kostur
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] MPL config draft (Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-01.txt)

Hi Bernie, Thank you for comments,

(2014-07-08 2:19), Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Not sure I'd suggest adding 10 (or 11) options for this?
>
> But I certainly would suggest, as Andre did, much simpler values - 
> flags and "compressed" data just make for much more complex and error 
> prone processing on both client and server. A structure which would 
> have all these values but in a much more standard set of data formats 
> would be better.

-2 for compressed data. I'd like to make 'uncompressed' version and check if it's acceptable for roll-ish network.

> Perhaps there is a middle grown to have groups of values (i.e., have
> 3-4 options)? I'm really not that familiar with MPL, but perhaps there 
> are some logical groupings that make sense (seems that there are data 
> and control messages would could be one logical separation).

Ah, so your suggestion is to have (for example) three options?:

1) MPL Base configuration
    (P, SE_LIFETIME, {MPL Domain})
2) MPL Control channel configuration
    (C_K, C_MIN, C_MAX, C_T_EXP, {MPL Domain})
3) MPL Data channel configuration
    (D_K, D_MIN, D_MAX, D_T_EXI, {MPL Domain})

For me, duplication of MPL domain (128bit address x 3) seems to be wasteful.

> Might also be nice in the Abstract to define MPL?

Thanks, I'll add a definition.

Yusuke