IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] capability vs. configuration

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 27 May 2019 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71023120177 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 07:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=HFjKX3Vz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=JKY32vbA
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 XjLmmu50y-Od for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 07:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49E10120123 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2019 07:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3580; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558968788; x=1560178388; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xgTVecNtIXUoHv0MvWhBXHjm2WCO5xc9QTf1xEGdpzw=; b=HFjKX3VzMf4SzU3syNEMK9PmbY1qUyiTB23yUa0ndoHAMeYHjOknz2+3 CaMoqmw1P2w7Tj1vRC/JlF9RH8NzEzsi7/qfZAyB6DVvgWTyYmo/0MC0n C4KgyNIXKh4kOoUmWMvY0hIIcGSNylkiuO/O5prx2XuGclvQQ29H40aI8 Y=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:upziLhE1eMCQz2afcA6B1J1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7IYmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4z1Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0pNVcejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+eeb2bzEwEd5efFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CmAACj+Otc/5BdJa1lHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBUgYBAQsBgT1QA2lVIAQLKAqECYNHA455SoINlyuBLoEkA1QGAwEBAQwBASMKAgEBgUuCdQIXgj8jNQgOAQMBAQQBAQIBBG0cDIVKAQEBBBIREQwBATgLBAIBCBEEAQEBAgImAgICMBUICAIEEwgagwGBagMdAQIMnGUCgTiIEgFMcYEvgnkBAQWEexiCDwMGNVcoAYtSF4FAP4FXgkw+gmECAgGBQg8PgwgygiaODJpLCQKCDYY0jHyWSZNwjnYCBAIEBQIOAQEFgVEDM4FXcBWDJ4IPg3CFFIU/coEpiyyBLwGBIAEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,519,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="560539694"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 May 2019 14:53:04 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4REr4PD016557 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2019 14:53:04 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 27 May 2019 09:53:03 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 27 May 2019 09:53:02 -0500
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 27 May 2019 10:53:02 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=xgTVecNtIXUoHv0MvWhBXHjm2WCO5xc9QTf1xEGdpzw=; b=JKY32vbAmd6tps/ooiSPhfTWW4oGUtDY0vTFEl05knZzyWoJHlU/sKDjuteBFDGaRVC+YuZW01kb40yIui/A6F6HpyYKJD+siKR0wKjFJV+Q8GbyXb4uStQ4IZ26LtSq+lKy3AGfQ0b3DhKlCK9tPGB7xMTz3uz6OKOKmmhd8Qw=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB3693.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.252.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.16; Mon, 27 May 2019 14:53:02 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7cc2:b440:8820:f0fc]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7cc2:b440:8820:f0fc%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1922.021; Mon, 27 May 2019 14:53:02 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] capability vs. configuration
Thread-Index: AQHVFDua42hZh9XuNUOlnMD+d9AwVaZ+a88WgACJJAD//4rNcIAAi5AAgAACAqA=
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 14:52:55 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 27 May 2019 14:52:52 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB3565099E9B131B6530A44090D81D0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <A587F9B0-9F1A-4307-9D3E-C261D6EF566A@cisco.com> <6E26B721-36DF-4B0D-8930-3F90179D557B@cisco.com> <87C818D7-A6D2-466D-9E74-3FBFCBD812F9@cisco.com> <MN2PR11MB356549E5AB3B8CFDC7249465D81D0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <21535.1558967926@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <21535.1558967926@localhost>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.48]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c0141052-07a7-4fca-2d83-08d6e2b30463
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB3693;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3693:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB36932F5151DE843B87555E14D81D0@MN2PR11MB3693.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0050CEFE70
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(396003)(376002)(366004)(39860400002)(346002)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(51444003)(52536014)(316002)(73956011)(66066001)(66946007)(26005)(186003)(66476007)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(76116006)(9686003)(229853002)(74316002)(68736007)(102836004)(33656002)(6306002)(5660300002)(6506007)(305945005)(53546011)(7736002)(7696005)(71200400001)(476003)(81156014)(81166006)(71190400001)(8676002)(8936002)(486006)(55016002)(478600001)(53936002)(446003)(6436002)(6916009)(86362001)(99286004)(25786009)(256004)(14454004)(966005)(6666004)(11346002)(2906002)(6246003)(76176011)(3846002)(6116002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3693; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: h3hcLVpB5LpHS8VF39KX+G0wzWhHv5sernqtUgyDmB8D5hwj5by6wpy++DyhMIBYa1E9YyrayWyy+6zmPml73WOZ71aPgtrXLXEDmReqQPiuXA7c20/BeC9Ni3QsEtGFfKGnJUaipqkKzf8PNugmV4EOTfR5sGUn2wNPfAS8dg67VgzR8KreIqnBtMUl8zZ+7lphrmGSRVr0+vMZK/yvTywxqZtcOn2PuJvBeUetlPOvFauK8Cl+oZV0IpZyRXNyKusXQehNyL1BHAnclpjwu3ptnazEREB7YgOIchfpAXKO6oAEm1bqe8p4r0fV93SQlsTMxn5vtMXCW8HEn7kzKQW6HZPBE5zNt8CSNuCQX50tIk0II8Q84K+URdnIJXUXVjAblH0IbiRNkRs368NueQrH3Hv55vFH4wzfJw+ArUI=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c0141052-07a7-4fca-2d83-08d6e2b30463
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 May 2019 14:53:01.7697 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: pthubert@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3693
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/yRc6HPJ0A6uez4nmAGvPQRtAa5Y>
Subject: Re: [Roll] capability vs. configuration
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 27 May 2019 14:53:10 -0000

I see. 

Which means that if we have a real flag day then we do not need the config flag in the config option. 
The flag is really useful in the transient phase where nodes are capable of the feature but not using it yet till all are capable.
That was the initial thought but then (big surprise) we found that operational people do not want to bring down a network of 1000s of nodes, reflash them and then reboot it all fingers crossed.
What they can do is reflash over the air and then restart the devices asynchronously, keeping the network globally alive.
This is what triggered the need for the configuration flag. I think the same applies to useofrplinfo, which also justifies the config bit there. 

But then "flag day" should not be used in either spec should it?

All the best,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: lundi 27 mai 2019 16:39
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] capability vs. configuration
> 
> 
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>     > I think that what is true there is true also for useofrplinfo. The flag is
>     > used to delay the use of the new feature till the flag day. Once the flag
> day
>     > is passed, that’s it for all.
> 
> That's not the correct usage of the term "flag day", and I think your usage
> causes confusion!
> 
> A *Flag Day* is one where one turns off the network, reconfigures it, and
> restarts cold.  It's not the day that the configuration (flag) value is set
> :-)
> 
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_day_(computing)
>     This systems terminology originates from a major change in the Multics
>     operating system's definition of ASCII, which was scheduled for the United
>     States holiday, Flag Day, on June 14, 1966.
> 
> note that it's called "Flag Day" because of when it occured (on a specific
> holiday), not because flags were changed.
> 
> ====
> 
> The configuration option in the DAO allows the network to reconfigure
> without being turned off.
> 
> The purpose of each of these configuration options is to keep more capable
> nodes from using their capabilities until all nodes are upgraded.
> In effect, one can always choose not to compress,  and this is why 8138 is
> lossy compression rather than subIP.
> 
> This means nodes have to be able to process without 8138, and that means
> more code :-(
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email