[Roll] [6man] #8 (draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl): draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03 relation with draft-bormann-6lo-rpl-mesh-00
"6man issue tracker" <trac+6man@trac.tools.ietf.org> Thu, 14 August 2014 07:21 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+6man@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 2C63E1A08F5; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] 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 K7I603KIxgZk; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 629721A08E5; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:57768 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+6man@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1XHpLo-0006M4-OL; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:21:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: 6man issue tracker <trac+6man@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: pthubert@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com
X-Trac-Project: 6man
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:21:32 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/8
Message-ID: <067.39ff52585c7babe2e3fa02e2043cbad6@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 8
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: pthubert@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6man@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/uUhmAHFBfN0NteCZGpx0anY6NOk
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:26:06 -0700
Cc: roll@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] [6man] #8 (draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl): draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03 relation with draft-bormann-6lo-rpl-mesh-00
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: 6man@ietf.org, 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: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:21:37 -0000
#8: draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03 relation with draft-bormann-6lo- rpl-mesh-00 Source: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08805.html From: Carsten Bormann <cabo at tzi.org> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 18:29:01 +0200 So far, we have mainly discussed the need for an optimization (it seems we now agree there is a need) and the interaction between the normative components of RFC 6437 and those of the draft at hand. I’d now like to bring up a different question: Is this the right approach? I have written up what appears to be a more natural approach in the strawman draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-6lo-rpl-mesh-00 Why are we doing the flow-label thing and not the more natural thing? [ ] because the flow label hack works on packets that leave the 6lo networks. • but do we really need to optimize this on the non-6lo networks? [ ] because the flow label hack has been around for a while and is now cast in stone. • is it? [ ] because there is a flaw with the way this has been integrated into the 6lo framework. • ______ (fill in the flaw) [ ] because ______ (fill in the reason) Inquiring minds want to know. Grüße, Carsten -- -------------------------------------------------+------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: Type: defect | pthubert@cisco.com Priority: major | Status: new Component: draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for- | Milestone: rpl | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------------------+------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/8> 6man <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>
- [Roll] [6man] #8 (draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-f… 6man issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [6man] #8 (draft-thubert-6man-flow-lab… 6man issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [6man] #8 (draft-thubert-6man-flow-lab… 6man issue tracker