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

Anand SVR <anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in> Tue, 05 August 2014 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in>
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 D90EA1A0453; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 xcWHVeKYF15p; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.iisc.ernet.in (relay.iisc.ernet.in [203.200.35.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929B01A0439; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ece.iisc.ernet.in (mail.ece.iisc.ernet.in [10.32.1.10]) by relay.iisc.ernet.in (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s75HIRT0031589; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 22:48:27 +0530
Received: from [10.3.1.91] ([10.3.1.91]) by ece.iisc.ernet.in (8.13.6/8.13.6/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id s75HHGBM032391; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 22:47:16 +0530
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D189A1@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <406B5D64-4F0E-4E71-BC60-A113FB367652@gmail.com> <46112F69-05F0-4E50-A808-287B06AE8E5F@cs.stanford.edu> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A9FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A9FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1E250FB9-1BBD-4074-9296-C269D6C409D7@ece.iisc.ernet.in>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11B651)
From: Anand SVR <anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 22:48:25 +0530
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
X-IISc-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner-ID: s75HIRT0031589
X-IISc-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-IISc-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.899, required 6.5, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -1.90, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE 0.00)
X-IISc-MailScanner-From: anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/syb_7Ve0mVTjHX5oK9CN_66XQc8
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
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, 05 Aug 2014 17:18:51 -0000

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.