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

Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp> Tue, 08 July 2014 09:11 UTC

Return-Path: <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
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 60A631B27A2; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 02:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.343
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 yd0u-t3TiLbU; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 02:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imx2.toshiba.co.jp (inet-tsb5.toshiba.co.jp [202.33.96.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8F5F1A0154; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 02:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from arc1.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.194.235]) by imx2.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id s689B17i026893; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 18:11:01 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by arc1.toshiba.co.jp id s689B1C5029576; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 18:11:01 +0900 (JST)
Received: from unknown [133.199.192.144] by arc1.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id UAA29571; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 18:11:01 +0900
Received: from mx11.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp2.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id s689B0WT000522; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 18:11:00 +0900 (JST)
Received: from spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id s689B0GL016702; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 18:11:00 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [133.199.18.253] (ivpn-3-253.mobile.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.18.253]) by spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CF6097D24; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 18:11:00 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <53BBA43B.3080207@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:56:43 +0900
From: Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.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>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B5E9CA7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/xVOQxurT97XmTbpMBUyms6LUGCQ
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 09:11:06 -0000

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