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

On 14/08/2014 22:28, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> We can live with this Brian, 
> 
> but then I can we add at least an ISA100.11a network? ISA100.11a was designed in 2007/8, adopted IPv6 and 6LoWPAN, and uses the IPv6 flow label to indicate which flow a packet belongs to. 

I have no idea what ISA100.11a is or which organisation developed
it, but it sounds like a violation of the flow label standard at that
time (RFC 3697). If I'd known about it, we would probably have included
it in the menagerie of RFC 6294.

There's not much the IETF can do about other organisations that
misuse our standards, although indeed we sometimes need to
document such cases.

   Brian

In more details, devices are provisioned with per-flow behavior (including routing) and settings in what is called a contract.
The contractID is carried in the IPv6 flow label.
> 
> If so should we name ISA100 specifically or use a more vague description like a "RPL or similar LLN domain" 
> We'll note that resetting an flow label that comes from the Internet is a generic need is that flow label was set according to 6437, cannot be trusted to be untempered with, 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>> Sent: mercredi 13 août 2014 22:53
>> To: Philip Levis
>> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks; Ines Robles; 6man WG;
>> 6lo@ietf.org WG
>> Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
>>
>> On 14/08/2014 07:07, Philip Levis wrote:
>>> On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> If this draft is not adopted, the flow label from LLN will probably stay all
>> zeroes as it is today and the goal of 6437 will not be achieved.
>>> Pascal, I'm trying to reconcile your claim that the goal of 6437 is to
>>> allow enclosed networks to use the flow label with Brian's statement
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Phil
>> Right. I'm drawing a very subtle line between (a) stating an exception to 6437
>> for this particular usage and (b) opening the door to other usages. Since
>> 6man clearly didn't want (b) during the development of
>> 6437 I think we do need to limit ourselves to (a).
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 