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

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Wed, 13 August 2014 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.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 4E4F51A702B; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_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 CYuYB6ZSjm1r; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-x236.google.com (mail-vc0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48C461A08D1; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hy4so14831225vcb.27 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HWg2iR9QA75Mz2geZZ1ucbZ9sNX+CuR3KGhdegSzHDQ=; b=yy0GLPPfueRdjSiII+nH82JJ0XFLQgTvfyjiFrgTHx2CXW0QEZXtafv0sOyEnJCs2v UAYXRf88F6jDsN3DcTGsQstGfuWcfaYbiffVUAGTilxDC6sOchjke4oMljue2K5cPZ4L C2QY70dAK44FnfIu+kqgFmr1IcaXlVHyRLEq17xaMmFWI1EQH8gi83NmS3IuiNxCxg8i LWsVRonUthoJe5PYwxoeMA/BeklRmXmXV1cudPOHJ6rHAGxEmziNVaX2M5QD7r7YS5oO DWf2qawt74YHqNTUxkyCGWzKWLhypWCFbYxqXeIHeipXW4wNP49hSUtqybNqQ2g/X6WB 0MlA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.163.69 with SMTP id z5mr2344006vcx.10.1407916812404; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.58.69 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53EAA58D.4060401@gmail.com>
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> <057EC9C6-07FF-409B-A3BC-3348A5F43AB3@gmail.com> <53E534E8.4050304@gmail.com> <F7618DE0-7217-46C2-93A1-CE050085E7AB@employees.org> <53E926EB.9000505@gmail.com> <CAP+sJUfDyNa=t=+C=QXy8MmvG9rAUxA0mTsXL7xSWAeLUR1qcQ@mail.gmail.com> <53EAA58D.4060401@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:00:12 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUfRWDnDZZXhEP+ZjK-0HiTDt7WLsPorLhRUO9DWwnyG0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133da247a0b7105007e2de5
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/yqbU7vdAZwNNbKPzEzvtMohR1PU
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, 6man WG <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: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:00:15 -0000

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your comment.

Actually, I did not ask a question, I just wanted to say that the Pascal's
draft got consensus at ROLL in april, and the WGLC was done between 6man
and ROLL to know the 6man opinion about the use of flow-label (tickets #5,
#6 and #7). With the new Carsten proposal (6lo draft), we (constrained
environment WGs) should analyze this approach and decide the further steps
on Pascal draft related with that.

Thanks,

Ines


2014-08-13 2:38 GMT+03:00 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>om>:

> Ines,
>
> Can you perhaps clarify the exact question you are asking 6man?
>
> (I'm thinking that 6man isn't being asked whether the number
> of bits saved is a useful energy saving, or whether Carsten's
> proposal is better.)
>
> Regards
>    Brian
>
> On 12/08/2014 19:15, Ines Robles wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On April, it was discussed and got consensus in ROLL [
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08634.html].
> >
> > This technique saves bytes, as was demonstrated by Xavier in his
> > implementation [ start on Slide 41 -
> >
> https://bytebucket.org/6tisch/meetings/raw/712902bb451d113494a7045e9730f1bb50335a79/140720_ietf90_plugfest_toronto/ietf90_toronto_plugfest_slides.pdf
> ].
> > Maybe we should enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of using it.
> > (Some of these are tracked in ticket #5, #6 and #7).
> >
> >
> > Anyway, demostratedIt needs the 6man approval to go forward.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ines
> >
> >
> > 2014-08-11 23:26 GMT+03:00 Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>gt;:
> >
> >> On 12/08/2014 01:54, Ole Troan wrote:
> >>>> I *really* don't think RFCs are algorithms to the point where we
> >>>> need to do this. I see no reason why flow-label-for-rpl can't simply
> >>>> declare itself an exception to this clause of RFC 6437.
> >>> I must admit I'm uncomfortable with this draft and its approach. how
> can
> >> we be sure that we aren't opening a Pandora's box?
> >>> I'm worried that we set a precedence, and we'll see a new set of
> >> creative proposals for the use of these 20 bits.
> >>
> >> Well, that has been the case for a long time: see RFC 6294.
> >>
> >> I see the concern. Actually that's why I don't want to see a formal
> >> update to 6437, because the only rational update would be to allow
> >> any closed domain to invent its own usage. We had that argument at
> >> length during the development of 6437, and decided against it.
> >> Therefore, treating RPL as a special case is the remaining option.
> >> But does the ROLL community actually have consensus that they want
> >> this special case?
> >>
> >>    Brian
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Roll mailing list
> >> Roll@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>