Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Support of flow label to carry the RPL information in data packets

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 02 May 2014 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 E5D521A091A; Fri, 2 May 2014 13:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 NZtI7PfoqNXk; Fri, 2 May 2014 13:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281C21A0913; Fri, 2 May 2014 13:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id y13so2924946pdi.35 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 02 May 2014 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tCwYi14ig0Hy3fL6R9kS+T1itv9sheo6sd5ZStfPA5U=; b=bOwf94hDLKJ1/r3qudGwcgIykNx4Xo8Cy0f94jL30dFetYWUSYwR7yV7Vplbp5COLL YHYYth8Uxjrjnsm4Axhf6LeQAzRG+s2tDZJccTG4d2u3YaRj37UZXmx3K3At/Yai+qd1 2GAoupaPdIXrGHid46YPcisK+mGb2aFaTmE2zqSpZRuFLQb/wLCtwNL2kBX4sh/kbVLf E2Jsnu6bof5MQYTBLdOABaAKOtuocizh4xgXFE5ONMIkIs2dzLoy7uFOy62E5IaqgA0V evAwyWSVB9YrrVmH8DbYoD23Ml9IxjWxQVMKK01LW/tIALIxZDgxZ+4fwQ2Wkj+hS+4n HTZw==
X-Received: by 10.66.136.71 with SMTP id py7mr39005798pab.2.1399062167684; Fri, 02 May 2014 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (206.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xo9sm122918pab.18.2014.05.02.13.22.44 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 02 May 2014 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5363FE97.7090103@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 08:22:47 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842632160@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842632160@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/wPxLoIE8QZqML1w0Q5UcpKqBw5A
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, Pat Kinney <pat.kinney@KINNEYCONSULTINGLLC.COM>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Support of flow label to carry the RPL information in data packets
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: Fri, 02 May 2014 20:22:52 -0000

Hi Pascal,

Just responding to your question:

On 03/05/2014 04:54, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
...
>> I think the language around the relationship with RFC 6437 is a bit defensive
>> at the moment and could probably be a bit simpler and clearer. ("The
>> following exceptions to the rules in [RFC6437] are made:..."). I'd have a
>> preference for doing that without a formal update to 6437, because it's only
>> RPL implementors who need to change anything.
> 
> [PT] Can I change that text to describe the behavior proposed by the draft inside the RPL domain as the way the rules in 6437 are interpreted?

Well, I don't think personally that you need to be shy about saying
that within an RPL domain, the rules are in fact slightly changed instead
of being interpreted. The main thing is to be completely clear.

    Brian