From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Aug 7 12:43:00 2013 Return-Path: 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 65BE121E8098 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:43:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.23 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_63=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OZTbW8uOnUrw for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCEE21E8092 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38CCD2025B; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:49:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 243DEA904C; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1435CB8EA6; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:41:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: roll@ietf.org X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Roll] AMI applicability: storing/non-storing. X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:43:00 -0000 --=-=-= I read draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-07 on Monday,and I am so pleased to see this work resume. I see that there has been some hard thinking for certain aspects, and I hope that this process will continue. Some comments though on storing/non-storing mode. You write: > As a result, different AMI deployments can vary significantly in > terms of memory size, computation power and communication > capabilities. For this reason, the use of RPL storing or non-storing > mode SHOULD be deployment specific. When meters are memory a manufacturer that wishes to make meters for more than one market/RFP would need to put in enough memory for the worst case storing situation. So the advice here is empty. And how many routes is enough? The restof section 9.1.2 says, "if you have memory use storing mode, if you don't, then don't". > route repair latency. However, in high-density environments, storing > routes can be challenging because some nodes may have to maintain > routing information for a large number of descendents. When the > routing table size becomes challenging, it is RECOMMENDED that nodes > perform route aggregation, similarly to the approach taken by other > routing protocols, although the required set of mechanism may differ. I'm really unclear what this means. What mechanism are you referring? Route aggregation in BGP4 is accomplished by applocating aggregatable addresses. Are you suggesting that all the meters in a high-density environment should be numbered in a /64 different from the meters in the next building? How would this be configured? What device would do this? It seems to me that the AMI community would be interested in the hydrid modes which have been proposed, and further R&D in that area would be waranted. (The lack of a compromise between storing and non-storing is why I felt that would perhaps be multiple applicability statements for urban and suburban/rural environments, and perhaps also for battery operated environments. Your 1.3 seems to copy my text exactly, so please edit it. I would suggest that you write a document that says something like: this applies to metering applications where the number of possible parents is > X. (possible parents controls for differences in radio power, propogation, and physical density of meters. Or you could be specific about radio type, and just list meter density directly) -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUgKi2IqHRg3pndX9AQK6LQP8C+wUhr5EBKhZwXBCzzPDDEwMHokaJaLE 3otjUWbKqU5nJhK+8+t5ggBpK315Urz7T98Hj4Z+KD0WyakXproiON97kIpT7qVM Bt9hiAr6o+Ef/LXXV5bXZtHgINK30bUe35CSP4IKyK/cYR/h6Fzq9Mf9T//bEaW9 TZU1oeZB0BU= =Yxon -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From daafoussonia@yahoo.fr Fri Aug 9 03:07:30 2013 Return-Path: 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 436BF21F9929 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 03:07:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.501 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZKg-unBgBtEW for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 03:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm22-vm6.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com (nm22-vm6.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com [212.82.109.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 10F0A21F9831 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 03:07:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [77.238.189.231] by nm22.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Aug 2013 10:06:37 -0000 Received: from [212.82.98.107] by tm12.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Aug 2013 10:06:37 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1044.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Aug 2013 10:06:37 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 101261.14703.bm@omp1044.mail.ir2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 72109 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Aug 2013 10:06:37 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.fr; s=s1024; t=1376042797; bh=nnVzrR+QVF8gkUQ6cGSKD4Uvac6U3Fm0545Xw66lujA=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NwYHJNTnzA3AHkR9Q4IMLdjNhYwt0dVxZGMavKkipyFAeo39BF/gB3NO+1rB98EjLmMzgHBpYAfCclPg9Utj5kPKxkRHwuIWhvRsoSmWpaCm5fYIrAKdvnf3GvylQsWfAcRlfJPZYnKdrf869pCCfR+94S5MKi+wx6qglwv5YBE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.fr; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pLUmlU3i5RI6TPLuRaC6HO1Mw/gvCLzSYrnDfrNr2jjF6QBFLxQ+DYXPMZsd/FNUrgM903G/hBvUUzbxFwJMGj5Zborgc4GA8yV/+IXnI1G3pvA7HO2Yp77YhIlL2UmU0/6gl/ZDWS1bemg7mziuTuUX0l9gyJAYTPl2wkp81YI=; X-YMail-OSG: 1zvm7zIVM1kbpJcF68O1q9vQCe3CR8iLO4QqEf5OSVJHk06 mH6n9P0ZLiiVnY71KGCYuw90aaIN63QOXic65ky_c8tVEEtg0tdB4HxQG16Y Y0TYGUqj3WzXVkRI0kEFLDn1Detd8AxIwSNGWHq0VmSWkSui9ukgvNYFdTzv VIioGp.FtHEQG4xhdcr.JmiloYpa0KvU45_oyhgZdoWP.KT8AdUs6Brtg7nN WBzA0Ws77gbLyK6ISqxpGKgfNkApULec7qwEQ9bkk_hLTnnk920aUH7kL.zV eoUiFTCTcSWWOzy92vhSwoBaXv.xJDimJnG6HPYsY1kFYqmVbnkWbkxXEL8u J14m0_ODSP7w6miwZEq49aAIhuHaL9gf9Ueg0AXmkkil.Hs6EQ2mXlsyB0EL 1Kyn52ckutHxSxRIII0NjbqtnmJFsEjlwRvlTP03ekToas1REwFd0p.YEITn eXNbirTnr1E19y3Q3EYAkFza3w4QQzJtiJknjRqWRTN6Bo9JRSRBp Received: from [197.3.240.40] by web28904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 11:06:36 BST X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, RGVhciBhbGwsCgpJJ20gc3R1ZGVudCBpbiBtYXN0ZXIsIGknbSB2ZXJ5IGludGVyZXN0ZWQgYWJvdXQgwqBSUEwgcHJvdG9jb2wgc2ltdWxhdGlvbiBpbiBPTU5FVCsrIC4KCkknbSBsb29raW5nIGZvciB0aGUgc291cmNlIGNvZGUgZm9yIFJQTCB3aXRoIE9NTmVUKysuIEkgbmVlZCB0byBkbyBzb21lIHNpbXVsYXRpb24uCgoKCmNhbiB5b3UgaGVscCBtZSBwbGVhc2UuCgpUaGFuaydzLgoKU29uaWEuATABAQEB X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.153.572 Message-ID: <1376042796.71876.YahooMailNeo@web28904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:06:36 +0100 (BST) From: Sonia Daafous To: roll@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1142916560-2093401688-1376042796=:71876" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:24:26 -0700 Subject: [Roll] OMNRT++ code for RPL X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Sonia Daafous , Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 10:20:09 -0000 ---1142916560-2093401688-1376042796=:71876 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all,=0A=0AI'm student in master, i'm very interested about =A0RPL prot= ocol simulation in OMNET++ .=0A=0AI'm looking for the source code for RPL w= ith OMNeT++. I need to do some simulation.=0A=0A=0A=0Acan you help me pleas= e.=0A=0AThank's.=0A=0ASonia. ---1142916560-2093401688-1376042796=:71876 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

I'm student in master, i'm very interested about =  RPL protocol simulation in OMNET++ .
I'm looking for the source code for RPL with OMNeT++. I need to do som= e simulation.

can you help me please.
=
= Thank's.

Sonia.
<= /span>
---1142916560-2093401688-1376042796=:71876-- From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Wed Aug 14 09:28:40 2013 Return-Path: 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 AF23311E81F0; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZVX2WtZmeq9h; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4915811E81DD; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6D315B1E004; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:24:19 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20130814162419.6D315B1E004@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, roll@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Roll] RFC 6997 on Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low-Power and Lossy Networks X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:28:40 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6997 Title: Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low-Power and Lossy Networks Author: M. Goyal, Ed., E. Baccelli, M. Philipp, A. Brandt, J. Martocci Status: Experimental Stream: IETF Date: August 2013 Mailbox: mukul@uwm.edu, Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr, matthias-philipp@gmx.de, abr@sdesigns.dk, jerald.p.martocci@jci.com Pages: 40 Characters: 96596 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-17.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6997.txt This document specifies a point-to-point route discovery mechanism, complementary to the Routing Protocol for Low-power and Lossy Networks (RPL) core functionality. This mechanism allows an IPv6 router to discover "on demand" routes to one or more IPv6 routers in a Low-power and Lossy Network (LLN) such that the discovered routes meet specified metrics constraints. This document is a product of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Working Group of the IETF. EXPERIMENTAL: This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search.php For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Wed Aug 14 09:28:53 2013 Return-Path: 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 1301711E81DD; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:28:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.78 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.820, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UJRsQ3Xn7qba; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7803211E81F7; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 72E43B1E005; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:24:28 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20130814162428.72E43B1E005@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, roll@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Roll] RFC 6998 on A Mechanism to Measure the Routing Metrics along a Point-to-Point Route in a Low-Power and Lossy Network X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:28:53 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6998 Title: A Mechanism to Measure the Routing Metrics along a Point-to-Point Route in a Low-Power and Lossy Network Author: M. Goyal, Ed., E. Baccelli, A. Brandt, J. Martocci Status: Experimental Stream: IETF Date: August 2013 Mailbox: mukul@uwm.edu, Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr, abr@sdesigns.dk, jerald.p.martocci@jci.com Pages: 29 Characters: 68274 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-measurement-10.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6998.txt This document specifies a mechanism that enables a Routing Protocol for Low-power and Lossy Networks (RPL) router to measure the aggregated values of given routing metrics along an existing route towards another RPL router, thereby allowing the router to decide if it wants to initiate the discovery of a better route. This document is a product of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Working Group of the IETF. EXPERIMENTAL: This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search.php For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sat Aug 17 03:40:52 2013 Return-Path: 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 B0B2521F8E8E; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 03:40:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AGYvb8kNgwHP; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 03:40:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3802521F84DB; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 03:40:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.70.p1 Message-ID: <20130817104041.27314.68583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 03:40:41 -0700 Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-01.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 10:40:52 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks= Working Group of the IETF. Title : Applicability Statement: The use of the RPL protocol set= in Home Automation and Building Control Author(s) : Anders Brandt Emmanuel Baccelli Robert Cragie Peter van der Stok Filename : draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-01.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2013-08-17 Abstract: The purpose of this document is to provide guidance in the selection and use of RPL protocols to implement the features required in building and home environments. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-build= ing-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From mcr@sandelman.ca Sun Aug 18 15:14:22 2013 Return-Path: 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 6F8DE11E8197; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.834 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.765, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.219, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5AZOBOHgzCEw; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBBAA11E817D; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.252.140]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DE3022080; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:14:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F258CA0D7; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:30:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>, roll@ietf.org In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Watteyne message dated "Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:12:45 +0200." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:30:19 -0400 Message-ID: <6445.1376771419@sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "Ted Lemon \(ted.lemon@nominum.com\)" Subject: [Roll] should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:14:22 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This email is directed at IESG types, as this requires an IESG action. >>>>> "Thomas" =3D=3D Thomas Watteyne writes: Thomas> After discussion and suggestions from numerous 6TSCH and Thomas> other people here at the IETF, the chairs have created a Thomas> new, simplified version of the draft, which we have uploaded Thomas> in the repo at: Thomas> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/src/master/chart= er-ietf-6tsch-00.txt Foolishly, I didn't copy this to my laptop before leaving for the cottage, where I am now catching up on some mailing lists using DTN protocols, as no network, so I haven't read the above.=20 In the last version that I read the question of what, if anything, to do with draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability was unresolved. To recap, the options are: 1) nothing. Leave it in ROLL. It may progress as is, or it may reference si= xtus work non-norminatively. A second document (-bis) might reference sixtus normatively in the futur= e. 2) leave it in ROLL, have it reference sixtus work normatively, and have this document stalled until sixtus progresses. 3) move this document to sixtus, where I think it will get significantly more review and energy. There are perhaps other options, which I would like to add to a list, and then make a WG consensus call (in ROLL) about what feedback ROLL would like the IESG to hear. (You can perhaps see which one I prefer) =2D-=20 Michael Richardson =2Dat the cottage- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJSD91aAAoJEKD0KQ7Gj3P2pIUIAIEau+s++Yzg1D764xHDCytl skbpXVNRVuOaDscs71MekPuxoPgtNyzB+GsGtNvnZI8zGdhtD3SFaMr7vP/Pytp2 zeBWWbZchDx8iuN3EYAhLB08cw1vAcipjcaH15w1dahGWHci9kGjwpDZ7KCZ3dE8 fompHNmJMVf0TZPfeRSyxwe3IO2LfvNbm5J988qf4B3PAMvlHfxtVTPDykh4g5+n yj+tf7LziwfB65SVgE47LzOiQ0D7W/kgK1wz41rmDzuzlrTrhYQEn3Hhyp5qU58C 3yM+qsrAG29ZWXaVbfs1ISM3/3UgLAK4N/sNgzNkTyspRQAS9CwOzogkk/0ziak= =vaZy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Sun Aug 18 15:14:22 2013 Return-Path: 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 DBE7D11E817D for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.643 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.574, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.219, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GPANI6D0nxi1 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBBF111E8184 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.252.140]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6CB42207E; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F68CA0D9; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:50:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: roll@ietf.org In-reply-to: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> Comments: In-reply-to "roll issue tracker" message dated "Tue, 21 May 2013 00:12:04 -0000." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:50:12 -0400 Message-ID: <7297.1376772612@sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: mariainesrobles@gmail.com, johui@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:14:23 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {answering some old emails, and trying to bring about some consensus to close this ticket}=20 >>>>> "lynn" =3D=3D roll issue tracker writ= es: lynn> Apart from the fact that this draft is introduced in ROLL to lynn> address a problem inherent in multi-link subnets, I see lynn> nothing in the proposal that limits it to such networks. It lynn> seems to me that trickle multicast could be considered in lynn> other applications, e.g. homenet, if it compares favorably lynn> with PIM-xM in complexity. I agree that it could be used elsewhere, and I think it's important to remember that it's going to run over all sorts of media, as ROLL runs over all sorts of links. adrian> From Adrian Farrel about section 3 Applicability Statement adrian> - can this be run over a wired (non-lossy, non-constrained adrian> environment) - should this be contained at the LBR,=20=20 Yes, it can be gatewayed at the LBR, the because the LBR is the edge of the LLN, not necessarily the edge of the DODAG. The DODAG may be extended across one or more wired segments to link(*) different parts of the LLN together.=20 (*) (I wrote "bridge" initially, and that's meaningful in a colloquial term, but I don't want to confuse people into thinking it's related to 802 concepts) =09 adrian> and if adrian> so, can mcast traffic be gatewayed into the Internet define "Internet" :-) If you are asking if it can escape into an ISP uplink due to misconfiguration of scope-3 interfaces, yes it could do that.=20=20 At which point, it would face non-MPL routers, and traffic would die. I can see a potential risk on cable networks where it some combination of misconfigured home gateways might permit MPL traffic from one home to enter another home's network.=20 If you are asking if mcast traffic could be gatewayed into the PIM multicast space, I supposed with the emission of the right IGMPs onto the link with the PIM routers, and then decapsulation/encapsulation of the packets, such a thing could occur. I don't see it as desireable. The inner packets are expected to scope-2 (link) packets, so really, no=20 compliant PIM router would do anything with them. Are you asking for some Security Considerations here? adrian> - can adrian> MPL operate in a mixed environment where not all routers are adrian> MPL capable?=20=20 No, I don't think so. Non-MPL routers will not forward things. adrian> - do the hosts need to be in any way aware adrian> that their mcast is supported by MPL? At some point the answer has been yes and at other points it has been no, and I guess I have to back to the document to remember what we concluded. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson =2Don the road- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJSD+IEAAoJEKD0KQ7Gj3P2a3MIAKEDnnEd0rn7nIFkACJkDPb/ g0x90dW6eTe0lWLhnLpFAcCdqijsUPHeySArG+ETOvpYSnlGncV6mAWfKH5BftiN UcFFr6T8hjCrqanxLnJ2BUBGqMxVPgvxdGyLSuaqaAuaH4RMv1xsQUOkKJPiBYMy oTvF8RN4eItZed669eddz5w0Sh9rPsNPf9lDNQdE7BLJIkYEU2ZxjSMVvn4Cx8ak 45KQGeemdsrl+JtsPSGEPJR/YraObinOP+I4PW1th+ih79FE4KimxXqlg7Wc2C/r lA92kReyvXTJbiv6oSfpfZssftEBSgAnK8mHf2LiX5s/qUzthyJ6kt/DJiUyiOw= =IYes -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Sun Aug 18 15:37:19 2013 Return-Path: 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 250D911E81CE; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:37:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.138 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.138 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IqdT9jaAJ0kA; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088F511E81C6; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.252.140]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2094C22077; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:37:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C15CA0C9; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:37:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>, roll@ietf.org In-reply-to: <6445.1376771419@sandelman.ca> References: <6445.1376771419@sandelman.ca> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Richardson message dated "Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:30:19 -0400." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:37:20 -0400 Message-ID: <6375.1376865440@sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "Ted Lemon \(ted.lemon@nominum.com\)" , draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:37:19 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable please see inline. >>>>> "mcr" =3D=3D Michael Richardson writes: Thomas> in the repo at: Thomas> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/src/master/chart= er-ietf-6tsch-00.txt mcr> Foolishly, I didn't copy this to my laptop before leaving for mcr> the cottage, where I am now catching up on some mailing lists mcr> using DTN protocols, as no network, so I haven't read the mcr> above. I have re-read this final version. Applicability statements are not included in the current charter, nor is it clear to me if the industrial uses envisioned by the ROLL industrial applicability statement knows if it needs static of dynamic=20 schedules. mcr> In the last version that I read the question of what, if mcr> anything, to do with mcr> draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability was unresolved. mcr> To recap, the options are: mcr> 1) nothing. Leave it in ROLL. It may progress as is, or it may mcr> reference sixtus work non-norminatively. A second document mcr> (-bis) might reference sixtus normatively in the future. mcr> 2) leave it in ROLL, have it reference sixtus work normatively, mcr> and have this document stalled until sixtus progresses. mcr> 3) move this document to sixtus, where I think it will get mcr> significantly more review and energy. mcr> There are perhaps other options, which I would like to add to a I am now of the opinion that proceeding with (1), as things are, might be the best way forward for now, but that a -bis document in some group would be appropriate.=20=20 My message to IESG-types is that the industrial applicability statement-bis is required. My uncertainty is that I don't not know if the non-bis applicability statement will have any practical use in industry at all. It might not be worth the 16-bits to store the RFC#. I look to those better connected to that industry to say. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson =2Dat the cottage- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJSEUygAAoJEKD0KQ7Gj3P2Q2gH/j+1izRaqnFHA71BlqJAgfMX RBQaahLA9brKC+dNhusVZZqXvnlNRrKslWMXBDcZIh0/Hvd+BKye1hovfCNAZcdL xgH3kK+ZMn3aOQOCxWK6nyfTqzEgJrirMVL4Bvdfyf3FBMJkAlBhS8nX1Uz3v73r U/3ym7ldLKrVQ5m8mmfJWnRUS3Se1g0JXX19W+Z3h+/3NuqAlwcPlBCvNBBBX1ZI fP1v98gUI1zgWDedI+43xXKG8l9WQksCAQ4Z6Fi/D3TugV0v2UtGZbPnELVocJ0Z 3JO1ApMje+wSVtSJYXHGTjgkfk7/Vdf4F1xO/4WBZ6OX4qgTxi1FofJ/l/X+mZE= =1/vC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Mon Aug 19 04:46:34 2013 Return-Path: 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 4A30F11E8259; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:46:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bLrqRFm8p4dU; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C14711E8262; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7JBjNvj011484; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:45:23 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7JBjLRL011474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:45:22 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Michael Richardson'" , "'6TSCH'" <6tsch@ietf.org>, References: <6445.1376771419@sandelman.ca> <6375.1376865440@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <6375.1376865440@sandelman.ca> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:45:21 +0100 Message-ID: <051e01ce9cd1$96b957b0$c42c0710$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQEkTJGQvd+bjso7JL5G/qAvgS0NEgGp8MGdAgyt/LSa01RrcA== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability@tools.ietf.org, 'Ted Lemon' Subject: Re: [Roll] should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:46:34 -0000 Hi Michael, Thanks for thinking about this. I believe I read the bottom line as "Steady as she goes," but with the intention of looking back at this from time to time. And yes, Ted, should sixtus also have a milestone for some form of applicability statement? Cheers, Adrian > >>>>> "mcr" == Michael Richardson writes: > Thomas> in the repo at: > Thomas> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/src/master/charter- > ietf-6tsch-00.txt > > mcr> Foolishly, I didn't copy this to my laptop before leaving for > mcr> the cottage, where I am now catching up on some mailing lists > mcr> using DTN protocols, as no network, so I haven't read the > mcr> above. > > I have re-read this final version. > > Applicability statements are not included in the current charter, nor is > it clear to me if the industrial uses envisioned by the ROLL > industrial applicability statement knows if it needs static of dynamic > schedules. > > mcr> In the last version that I read the question of what, if > mcr> anything, to do with > mcr> draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability was unresolved. > > mcr> To recap, the options are: > > mcr> 1) nothing. Leave it in ROLL. It may progress as is, or it may > mcr> reference sixtus work non-norminatively. A second document > mcr> (-bis) might reference sixtus normatively in the future. > > mcr> 2) leave it in ROLL, have it reference sixtus work normatively, > mcr> and have this document stalled until sixtus progresses. > > mcr> 3) move this document to sixtus, where I think it will get > mcr> significantly more review and energy. > > mcr> There are perhaps other options, which I would like to add to a > > I am now of the opinion that proceeding with (1), as things are, might > be the best way forward for now, but that a -bis document in some group > would be appropriate. > > My message to IESG-types is that the industrial applicability > statement-bis is required. > > My uncertainty is that I don't not know if the non-bis applicability > statement will have any practical use in industry at all. It might not > be worth the 16-bits to store the RFC#. I look to those better > connected to that industry to say. From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Mon Aug 19 05:17:41 2013 Return-Path: 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 619B921F8A53; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:17:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E-rD4u7SCjK8; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og120.obsmtp.com (exprod7og120.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F101111E8249; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob120.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUhIM2LeP9aPknZWwIK8d/SrhvPahD8XP@postini.com; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:17:30 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0D41B82A4; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FDEA19005D; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:17:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:17:28 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: "" Thread-Topic: should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability? Thread-Index: AQHOnGBIrGzAzibxMU2BJZZdbbC4BpmcA5cAgADcLICAAAj6gA== Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:17:27 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525B36E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <6445.1376771419@sandelman.ca> <6375.1376865440@sandelman.ca> <051e01ce9cd1$96b957b0$c42c0710$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <051e01ce9cd1$96b957b0$c42c0710$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>, "" , "" Subject: Re: [Roll] should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:17:41 -0000 On Aug 19, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > And yes, Ted, should sixtus also have a milestone for some form of applic= ability > statement? Do you mean in the form of a draft? From adrian@olddog.co.uk Mon Aug 19 05:23:11 2013 Return-Path: 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 12B8911E8105; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:23:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q7X7k-e22PsZ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDDF11E80DE; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7JCMumD012153; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:22:56 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7JCMqvH012119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:22:55 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Ted Lemon'" References: <6445.1376771419@sandelman.ca> <6375.1376865440@sandelman.ca> <051e01ce9cd1$96b957b0$c42c0710$@olddog.co.uk> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525B36E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525B36E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:22:52 +0100 Message-ID: <052a01ce9cd6$d5b92c60$812b8520$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQEkTJGQvd+bjso7JL5G/qAvgS0NEgGp8MGdAgyt/LQBehEmWAMEw6eOmq9njEA= Content-Language: en-gb Cc: '6TSCH' <6tsch@ietf.org>, roll@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:23:11 -0000 Yup (with the intention of publication as an RFC :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] > Sent: 19 August 2013 13:17 > To: > Cc: Michael Richardson; 6TSCH; ; applicability@tools.ietf.org> > Subject: Re: should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability? > > On Aug 19, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > And yes, Ted, should sixtus also have a milestone for some form of applicability > > statement? > > Do you mean in the form of a draft? From esko.dijk@philips.com Wed Aug 21 05:50:34 2013 Return-Path: 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 BD4A211E839B for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 05:50:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uRTTmKwjezQB for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 05:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BED711E839A for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 05:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail99-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.235) by CO9EHSOBE007.bigfish.com (10.236.130.70) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:50:25 +0000 Received: from mail99-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail99-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402E448012C; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:50:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.7.222; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:mail.philips.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -7 X-BigFish: VPS-7(zz15d6O1432I9251I217bIdd85kzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzzz2dh2a8h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1b2fh1fb3h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h1155h) Received: from mail99-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail99-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1377089423296932_29419; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CO9EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.238]) by mail99-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438D624004A; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.philips.com (157.55.7.222) by CO9EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (10.236.130.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:50:22 +0000 Received: from 011-DB3MMR1-020.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com (10.128.28.101) by 011-DB3MMR1-005.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com (10.128.28.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.2; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:50:00 +0000 Received: from 011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([169.254.3.216]) by 011-DB3MMR1-020.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([fe80::65e7:4d4c:4c67:daa9%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.002; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:50:01 +0000 From: "Dijk, Esko" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Michael Richardson , Adrian Farrel Thread-Topic: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? Thread-Index: AQHOnGBYx9PCJyaoF0yT9B4yI41o8JmfmAwg Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:50:00 +0000 Message-ID: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE7376@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> <7297.1376772612@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <7297.1376772612@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.138.224.32] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: philips.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:50:34 -0000 > adrian> - do the hosts need to be in any way aware > adrian> that their mcast is supported by MPL? > > At some point the answer has been yes and at other points it has been no,= and I guess I have to back to the document to remember what we concluded. I believe that MPL-04 does not answer this, and perhaps even cannot, becaus= e it is out of scope in the current text. It is not described how a non-MPL host can 'inject' its multicast packet in= to an MPL domain, or how an MPL Forwarder should 'demux' a multicast packet= out from the MPL Domain so that nearby listening non-MPL hosts can receive= the multicast. Solutions for this exist that require a host to be aware of MPL, and soluti= ons exist as well that don't require this. If Section 3 (Applicability Statement) could just mention this, plus the ot= her questions from ticket #128 that are now answered, I believe the ticket = can be closed. regards, Esko ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally p= rotected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addre= ssee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified tha= t any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is st= rictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipien= t, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the= original message. From d.sturek@att.net Wed Aug 21 07:04:14 2013 Return-Path: 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 33ECD11E83A8 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:04:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DaZi986I+EHI for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.safetynetaccess.com (mx2.safetynetaccess.com [64.61.99.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61BC311E80FB for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.2.115] (rrcs-76-79-31-98.west.biz.rr.com [76.79.31.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx2.safetynetaccess.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id r7LE40QS067329; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:04:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from d.sturek@att.net) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:04:00 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Michael Richardson , Adrian Farrel Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? In-Reply-To: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE7376@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:04:14 -0000 Hi Esko, Not quite sure about this statement: "It is not described how a non-MPL host can 'inject' its multicast packet into an MPL domain, or how an MPL Forwarder should 'demux' a multicast packet out from the MPL Domain so that nearby listening non-MPL hosts can receive the multicast." The scope of a multicast message arriving at a MPL capable border router determines whether it is injected into the MPL domain or not (and it would then be encapsulated) and, again, the scope of any generated multicast within a MPL domain determines whether it exits the MPL domain (encapsulated on generation in the MPL domain and de-encapsulated at the MPL border and forwarded if necessary based on the addressing scope of the interface). For our use case (ZigBee IP), we use 0x03 (realm-specific scope) for forwarding in the MPL domain (FF03::FC) and then we encapsulate our (at least our discovery messages) as site specific (FF05::FB). That said, it would be easy to add other applications with different address scope. I think it is really up to the application to determine the scope of the messages that are sent and then the rest of the addressing architecture simply ensures the messages are forwarded to all potential group members. Don On 8/21/13 5:50 AM, "Dijk, Esko" wrote: >> adrian> - do the hosts need to be in any way aware >> adrian> that their mcast is supported by MPL? >> >> At some point the answer has been yes and at other points it has been >>no, and I guess I have to back to the document to remember what we >>concluded. > >I believe that MPL-04 does not answer this, and perhaps even cannot, >because it is out of scope in the current text. >It is not described how a non-MPL host can 'inject' its multicast packet >into an MPL domain, or how an MPL Forwarder should 'demux' a multicast >packet out from the MPL Domain so that nearby listening non-MPL hosts can >receive the multicast. > >Solutions for this exist that require a host to be aware of MPL, and >solutions exist as well that don't require this. > >If Section 3 (Applicability Statement) could just mention this, plus the >other questions from ticket #128 that are now answered, I believe the >ticket can be closed. > >regards, >Esko > > >________________________________ >The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally >protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the >addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby >notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this >message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the >intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and >destroy all copies of the original message. > >_______________________________________________ >Roll mailing list >Roll@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From esko.dijk@philips.com Wed Aug 21 08:13:03 2013 Return-Path: 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 2364111E8112 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:13:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qaPMPHBJtDIQ for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1981521F9A19 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail193-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.228) by CO1EHSOBE023.bigfish.com (10.243.66.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:12:45 +0000 Received: from mail193-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail193-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE14CC00A5; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:12:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.7.222; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:mail.philips.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -6 X-BigFish: VPS-6(zz15d6O9251I217bIdd85kzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzzz2dh2a8h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1b2fh1fb3h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h1155h) Received: from mail193-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail193-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1377097962865491_28516; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CO1EHSMHS030.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.245]) by mail193-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D027D40035; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.philips.com (157.55.7.222) by CO1EHSMHS030.bigfish.com (10.243.66.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:12:42 +0000 Received: from 011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([169.254.3.216]) by 011-DB3MMR1-004.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([10.128.28.54]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.002; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:12:09 +0000 From: "Dijk, Esko" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "Don Sturek (d.sturek@att.net)" Thread-Topic: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? Thread-Index: AQHOnndoo2tUO9ZSNk+ujSUocY7tBZmfwBZA Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:12:09 +0000 Message-ID: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE748B@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE7376@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.138.224.32] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: philips.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:13:03 -0000 Don, I agree with you on the role of the multicast scope. MPL is defined well en= ough for this aspect. However I was referring to a different situation than= you had in mind, most likely. The situation I have in mind is a LLN mesh network where 'hosts' (IP hosts)= can reside at any position in the network. For example, a mesh network whe= re 50% of nodes are MPL Forwarders (together constituting a single MPL doma= in) and 50% of nodes are hosts that don't know anything about MPL. Suppose = one of these hosts, host A, sends out an IP multicast packet and three near= by MPL Forwarder nodes receive this multicast. Then, MPL-04 does not descri= be whether these MPL forwarders, or which of these, are required to "inject= " the multicast packet into the MPL domain. MPL-04 does say that an MPL For= warder may "inject" such a packet, acting as an MPL Seed. Similarly there's also no specification how a host B that is 5 hops away fr= om host A, could ever receive this multicast packet. (This won't happen aut= omatically since host B does not listen to the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS address -= it doesn't know about MPL. There's no requirement that every MPL Forwarder= "decapsulates" the received packets and resends them unencapsulated for th= e benefit of hosts.) I think Section 3 could just mention that additional mechanisms for the abo= ve are out of scope. regards, Esko ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally p= rotected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addre= ssee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified tha= t any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is st= rictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipien= t, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the= original message. From robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Wed Aug 21 09:27:08 2013 Return-Path: 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 0E57B11E8112 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:27:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pzeVzzBIS4Wp for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail41.extendcp.co.uk (mail41.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.44.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E06411E8110 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [94.116.73.183] (helo=[10.38.247.167]) by mail41.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) id 1VCBFI-0000p3-O0 for roll@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:26:56 +0100 Message-ID: <5214EA55.2030200@gridmerge.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:27:01 +0100 From: Robert Cragie Organization: Gridmerge Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: roll@ietf.org References: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE7376@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE748B@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> In-Reply-To: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE748B@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms000204050604080506070707" X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:27:08 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms000204050604080506070707 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Esko, I agree some of the description in earlier drafts seems to have gone=20 away (02->03), resulting in that, as you say, it becomes down to=20 configuration whether a MPL Forwarder would actually do this or not in=20 both the cases you describe. How it is configured would probably depend=20 on scope rules. Robert On 21/08/2013 16:12, Dijk, Esko wrote: > Don, > > I agree with you on the role of the multicast scope. MPL is defined wel= l enough for this aspect. However I was referring to a different situatio= n than you had in mind, most likely. > > The situation I have in mind is a LLN mesh network where 'hosts' (IP ho= sts) can reside at any position in the network. For example, a mesh netwo= rk where 50% of nodes are MPL Forwarders (together constituting a single = MPL domain) and 50% of nodes are hosts that don't know anything about MPL= =2E Suppose one of these hosts, host A, sends out an IP multicast packet = and three nearby MPL Forwarder nodes receive this multicast. Then, MPL-04= does not describe whether these MPL forwarders, or which of these, are r= equired to "inject" the multicast packet into the MPL domain. MPL-04 does= say that an MPL Forwarder may "inject" such a packet, acting as an MPL S= eed. > Similarly there's also no specification how a host B that is 5 hops awa= y from host A, could ever receive this multicast packet. (This won't happ= en automatically since host B does not listen to the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS a= ddress - it doesn't know about MPL. There's no requirement that every MPL= Forwarder "decapsulates" the received packets and resends them unencapsu= lated for the benefit of hosts.) > > I think Section 3 could just mention that additional mechanisms for the= above are out of scope. > > regards, > Esko > > > ________________________________ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legal= ly protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the= addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noti= fied that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this mes= sage is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the inten= ded recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all= copies of the original message. > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > --------------ms000204050604080506070707 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIILUDCC BRowggQCoAMCAQICEG0Z6qcZT2ozIuYiMnqqcd4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwga4xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoT FVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg RW1haWwwHhcNMTEwNDI4MDAwMDAwWhcNMjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UE ChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBAJKEhFtLV5jUXi+LpOFAyKNTWF9mZfEyTvefMn1V0HhMVbdClOD5J3EHxcZppLkyxPFA GpDMJ1Zifxe1cWmu5SAb5MtjXmDKokH2auGj/7jfH0htZUOMKi4rYzh337EXrMLaggLW1DJq 1GdvIBOPXDX65VSAr9hxCh03CgJQU2yVHakQFLSZlVkSMf8JotJM3FLb3uJAAVtIaN3FSrTg 7SQfOq9xXwfjrL8UO7AlcWg99A/WF1hGFYE8aIuLgw9teiFX5jSw2zJ+40rhpVJyZCaRTqWS D//gsWD9Gm9oUZljjRqLpcxCm5t9ImPTqaD8zp6Q30QZ9FxbNboW86eb/8ECAwEAAaOCAUsw ggFHMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR6E04AdFvG eGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADARBgNV HSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwWAYDVR0fBFEwTzBNoEugSYZHaHR0cDovL2NybC51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tL1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwdAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEaDBmMD0GCCsGAQUFBzAChjFodHRwOi8vY3J0LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20vVVRO QWRkVHJ1c3RDbGllbnRfQ0EuY3J0MCUGCCsGAQUFBzABhhlodHRwOi8vb2NzcC51c2VydHJ1 c3QuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCF1r54V1VtM39EUv5C1QaoAQOAivsNsv1Kv/av QUn1G1rF0q0bc24+6SZ85kyYwTAo38v7QjyhJT4KddbQPTmGZtGhm7VNm2+vKGwdr+XqdFqo 2rHA8XV6L566k3nK/uKRHlZ0sviN0+BDchvtj/1gOSBH+4uvOmVIPJg9pSW/ve9g4EnlFsjr P0OD8ODuDcHTzTNfm9C9YGqzO/761Mk6PB/tm/+bSTO+Qik5g+4zaS6CnUVNqGnagBsePdIa XXxHmaWbCG0SmYbWXVcHG6cwvktJRLiQfsrReTjrtDP6oDpdJlieYVUYtCHVmdXgQ0BCML7q peeU0rD+83X5f27nMIIGLjCCBRagAwIBAgIQXDFQ28QtqMuYch5f2nTvZjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQUFADCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4G A1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENP TU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTAeFw0xMTA5 MDIwMDAwMDBaFw0xNDA5MDEyMzU5NTlaMIIBNzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxEDAOBgNVBBETB1dG NCA0V0ExFzAVBgNVBAgTDldlc3QgWW9ya3NoaXJlMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlXYWtlZmllbGQxFDAS BgNVBAkTC0dyYW5nZSBNb29yMR8wHQYDVQQJExY4OSBHcmVlbmZpZWxkIENyZXNjZW50MRcw FQYDVQQKEw5HcmlkbWVyZ2UgTHRkLjE0MDIGA1UECxMrSXNzdWVkIHRocm91Z2ggR3JpZG1l cmdlIEx0ZC4gRS1QS0kgTWFuYWdlcjEfMB0GA1UECxMWQ29ycG9yYXRlIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFp bDEWMBQGA1UEAxMNUm9iZXJ0IENyYWdpZTEqMCgGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYbcm9iZXJ0LmNyYWdp ZUBncmlkbWVyZ2UuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEArcThqvLe WU1Q1ZJmnb+2UQSwOQKWok3A1Mwk582AdvwaAQyBFliPyJ0kXJqtwNBoZvk+3WJr0QA5ZRr+ J0x3sXVpcxadojP2HNzy1gsgDtIGG8ltoU4vmX1A8BTlOIUT+Pg8p/bSruxV0vz0CR8ho2hs R0Zi5vU+rQKNmbgufbkWhlQnMEYjknemscLQfw1YZz90ta67doNDujFy6+X6I06HpjudgMYx 8bdsNS5xVFFwuBA1eqNQra+xLzhCOeX9PPB/zK68qdNhrni3WPYG9EhSt4Dzk+xIz9hj7wrU ZIVXDTPsY8qbUSBVpwmzI5lCHPgzurH1OK7WwgpDSsl5pwIDAQABo4IB1TCCAdEwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUehNOAHRbxnhjZCfBL+KgW7x5xXswHQYDVR0OBBYEFBCOXNH+lDm8U9gy3b3bRvrx vKgrMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwME BggrBgEFBQcDAjBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEDBTArMCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1o dHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEygSqBIhkZodHRwOi8v Y3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVt YWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29t b2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5j cnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAmBgNVHREEHzAdgRty b2JlcnQuY3JhZ2llQGdyaWRtZXJnZS5jb20wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAD6b/O0LkPav kR4Znoqxg0Ad7M3duDm4uzfrlX4ecgq56Ccdwd+3Tayz7Ewej30woVMmTKkA/NKRaCd0wVM9 8seF/oZjXKO7o1SH27igRnGSWjCoWXsdwJGfZbYnvcIIhhsxJoCPNbeSR7C0PAFDKsP3xrJy MHMljIJsoRbZu/fnYNyFWh9OXf7fYJOGmKDKAhSabUGfhY7umvU9d/YTqo02Q6YzC7d4zPNG 1a75AuHSEchf6GdKqycG38I5y9jlDaYfXspoS3PlTNCIeZONbOSMZgftnNEVKq+SWytFqyG/ 8+dwpm/a12KMex5J8iHwaUKj++2O2rAFNjDDqXpeEYoxggQZMIIEFQIBATCBqDCBkzELMAkG A1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9y ZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQg QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQQIQXDFQ28QtqMuYch5f2nTvZjAJ BgUrDgMCGgUAoIICRTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEP Fw0xMzA4MjExNjI3MDFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSDZC1v7zx1jh9K4KwbuXGZIepLrDBs BgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcw DgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEo MIG5BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgaswgagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVy IE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1p dGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUg RW1haWwgQ0ECEFwxUNvELajLmHIeX9p072YwgbsGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGroIGoMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxm b3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhBcMVDbxC2oy5hyHl/adO9m MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAC4ZbTLcD+qmomuvSoux3F7mLozUpT+Rg/rZG+srFFfHLjsQ KQ3CMS6KJUuUndZwOMiylT93VH6BXf5tBYMAu3GS54Dj8n6JWddHE2Y0oXB8rNfGSaRNWSgH /gdJ6IA23t5X00/RgHcku379Vhs+tnVm83xt0mITk6jRHiZ4QsZCFdW1w6na+c6L7fx9m1nM MctH2M+IAhfFhe2BMk62hCXXQl6z04YZYV3No6pEy+UkCxcl6WDkcvxpVRbDTjzoS9x1btJg HuOOEnymGZ0kvS8ll/C/UfdRoZzODu5bI/bzZx+5QdkIMJq3FenhyM2hMtRkJ47CwuMLwH2X szVe36QAAAAAAAA= --------------ms000204050604080506070707-- From robert.cragie@gmail.com Wed Aug 21 10:14:39 2013 Return-Path: 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 19E9311E8245 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:14:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ynlF5nSfGuG0 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-x233.google.com (mail-ee0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E46F11E823E for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c1so415298eek.10 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:14:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=E8g87pd2/1gVmp3pKKlrtF4VA7o1nBarV89c/ago6bE=; b=TaSBXja4ayuYuqs0lnHJ0ptc9bR2bfXtApE5BsCmrA75rKnTf5/EJEebZ29Reydu10 /OcX9MoIywzeMmaF/7jSbR75qbD9X1rSMMoNDplF98gFLGu7SLIv7ZJrk2fsvXQVRsJ3 GYe8+ad7UP5Y3vJDq1BicsoA3q/ijyIIo2Cm+aOXeU2bp8wfxAYKqEKGYN55ssVxsgWE j0/aTWrXpyfiQEhwWlVGf4K8RKzQD8rXyumJB1WaSe5tRz6KtpOxmZJAX8JmQV5wL1op iQY1YL+qPb1hxnnlhVJMuiKZ2AeegKfDmDFpAC1iuHS+ez1lY23MKa0xjsxL2KP8hegM ZvDg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.14.4.1 with SMTP id 1mr12063802eei.21.1377105274478; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: robert.cragie@gmail.com Received: by 10.15.44.1 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.15.44.1 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:14:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5214EA55.2030200@gridmerge.com> References: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE7376@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE748B@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <5214EA55.2030200@gridmerge.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:14:34 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lv9iG7p6z-yTlcnuRi67dzPpv-Q Message-ID: From: Robert Cragie To: "roll@ietf.org WG" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b66f285b4447e04e4784e1e Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:14:39 -0000 --047d7b66f285b4447e04e4784e1e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Actually Ralph answered this point earlier in the thread - the configuration information goes in the applicability statement. Robert On 21 Aug 2013 17:27, "Robert Cragie" wrote: > Hi Esko, > > I agree some of the description in earlier drafts seems to have gone away > (02->03), resulting in that, as you say, it becomes down to configuration > whether a MPL Forwarder would actually do this or not in both the cases you > describe. How it is configured would probably depend on scope rules. > > Robert > > On 21/08/2013 16:12, Dijk, Esko wrote: > >> Don, >> >> I agree with you on the role of the multicast scope. MPL is defined well >> enough for this aspect. However I was referring to a different situation >> than you had in mind, most likely. >> >> The situation I have in mind is a LLN mesh network where 'hosts' (IP >> hosts) can reside at any position in the network. For example, a mesh >> network where 50% of nodes are MPL Forwarders (together constituting a >> single MPL domain) and 50% of nodes are hosts that don't know anything >> about MPL. Suppose one of these hosts, host A, sends out an IP multicast >> packet and three nearby MPL Forwarder nodes receive this multicast. Then, >> MPL-04 does not describe whether these MPL forwarders, or which of these, >> are required to "inject" the multicast packet into the MPL domain. MPL-04 >> does say that an MPL Forwarder may "inject" such a packet, acting as an MPL >> Seed. >> Similarly there's also no specification how a host B that is 5 hops away >> from host A, could ever receive this multicast packet. (This won't happen >> automatically since host B does not listen to the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS >> address - it doesn't know about MPL. There's no requirement that every MPL >> Forwarder "decapsulates" the received packets and resends them >> unencapsulated for the benefit of hosts.) >> >> I think Section 3 could just mention that additional mechanisms for the >> above are out of scope. >> >> regards, >> Esko >> >> >> ______________________________**__ >> The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally >> protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the >> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby >> notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this >> message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy >> all copies of the original message. >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Roll mailing list >> Roll@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/roll >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --047d7b66f285b4447e04e4784e1e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually Ralph answered this point earlier in the thread - t= he configuration information goes in the applicability statement.

Robert

On 21 Aug 2013 17:27, "Robert Cragie" = <robert.cragie@gridmerge.= com> wrote:
Hi Esko,

I agree some of the description in earlier drafts seems to have gone away (= 02->03), resulting in that, as you say, it becomes down to configuration= whether a MPL Forwarder would actually do this or not in both the cases yo= u describe. How it is configured would probably depend on scope rules.

Robert

On 21/08/2013 16:12, Dijk, Esko wrote:
Don,

I agree with you on the role of the multicast scope. MPL is defined well en= ough for this aspect. However I was referring to a different situation than= you had in mind, most likely.

The situation I have in mind is a LLN mesh network where 'hosts' (I= P hosts) can reside at any position in the network. For example, a mesh net= work where 50% of nodes are MPL Forwarders (together constituting a single = MPL domain) and 50% of nodes are hosts that don't know anything about M= PL. Suppose one of these hosts, host A, sends out an IP multicast packet an= d three nearby MPL Forwarder nodes receive this multicast. Then, MPL-04 doe= s not describe whether these MPL forwarders, or which of these, are require= d to "inject" the multicast packet into the MPL domain. MPL-04 do= es say that an MPL Forwarder may "inject" such a packet, acting a= s an MPL Seed.
Similarly there's also no specification how a host B that is 5 hops awa= y from host A, could ever receive this multicast packet. (This won't ha= ppen automatically since host B does not listen to the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS a= ddress - it doesn't know about MPL. There's no requirement that eve= ry MPL Forwarder "decapsulates" the received packets and resends = them unencapsulated for the benefit of hosts.)

I think Section 3 could just mention that additional mechanisms for the abo= ve are out of scope.

regards,
Esko


________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally p= rotected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addre= ssee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified tha= t any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is st= rictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipien= t, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the= original message.

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll




_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

--047d7b66f285b4447e04e4784e1e-- From anthea.mayzaud@inria.fr Fri Aug 23 07:33:34 2013 Return-Path: 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 820CA11E80FF for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:33:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IKtsjVPMrOeN for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055AB11E80D3 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:33:26 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,941,1367964000"; d="scan'208,217";a="30182427" Received: from zmbs2.inria.fr ([128.93.142.15]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 23 Aug 2013 16:33:23 +0200 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:33:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Anthea Mayzaud To: roll@ietf.org Message-ID: <1906059754.10732302.1377268404094.JavaMail.root@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <842944614.10732230.1377268380382.JavaMail.root@inria.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_10732301_2033495616.1377268404092" X-Originating-IP: [152.81.5.218] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.4_GA_2900 (ZimbraWebClient - GC28 (Linux)/7.2.4_GA_2900) Subject: [Roll] Questions about DAG inconsistency in RFC 6553 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:36:08 -0000 ------=_Part_10732301_2033495616.1377268404092 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all,=20 The RFC 6553 proposes to mitigate DAG and DAO inconsistency attacks. The sp= ec is not so clear and I have some questions about it.=20 First, why is the proposed threshold 20?=20 Second, it says that=20 " an implementation MAY limit the rate of Trickle timer resets caused by re= ceiving a RPL Option to no greater than MAX_RPL_OPTION_RANK_ERRORS per hour= ."=20 It is not so clear, should we understand that after receiving 20 messages w= ith R-bit set, the node does not trigger the reset of trickle timer but sti= ll drops the messages?=20 Thank you in advance,=20 Anth=E9a Mayzaud=20 ------=_Part_10732301_2033495616.1377268404092 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <= div style=3D'font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: = 12pt; color: #000000'>D= ear all,

The RFC 6553 proposes t= o mitigate DAG and DAO inconsistency attacks. The spec is not so clear and = I have some questions about it.

First, why is the proposed threshold 20?

Second, it says that 
"an = ;implementation MAY limit the rate o= f Trickle timer resets caused by per hour."
It is not = so clear, should we understand that after receiving 20 messages with R-bit = set, the node does not trigger the reset of trickle timer but still drops t= he messages? 

Thank you in advance,


Anth= =E9a Mayzaud


------=_Part_10732301_2033495616.1377268404092-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Mon Aug 26 06:46:54 2013 Return-Path: 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 AB87011E819F for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 06:46:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pkI0MXM6Oa8V for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 06:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9870011E819C for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 06:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.252.140]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4DAA22087; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:46:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D044CA0D6; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:22:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-reply-to: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE748B@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE7376@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE748B@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Dijk, Esko" message dated "Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:12:09 -0000." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 23.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:22:17 -0400 Message-ID: <6504.1377480137@sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:46:54 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dijk, Esko wrote: > The situation I have in mind is a LLN mesh network where 'hosts' (IP > hosts) can reside at any position in the network. For example, a mesh > network where 50% of nodes are MPL Forwarders (together constituting a > single MPL domain) and 50% of nodes are hosts that don't know anything > about MPL. Suppose one of these hosts, host A, sends out an IP I really wonder about these MPL-ignorant nodes which are part of an LLN mesh (and therefore, I think), speak RPL. Can you tell me more about them so that I am less skeptical about them being mythical. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson =2Don the road- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSGq3HAAoJEKD0KQ7Gj3P2NE0IAJDcZs73vqxVcJnbLplTMfu5 3oVw+Zy2H5IZ4uz6LdTrNgnphhEioiiZw/rDFfxl6S5F2IoV7Lb3pvBaqAwbQnhN S1xA46R86f4JDXX6KeyCLPyelPH3a8wjOlKO52tsca5NTW/MmKaZSKpQL1ptVPlD BkCutbWigYInOH8zENSdaNj9h28FPTiDF5t31o8EZ2WieSzNpEXTqRBzbGL5WZRv /AZo/8MzgL72Fes0frpcXfN9YFKygi7CWyddxdOSCW+ce5SjAMXF7CBJALsr6han peekAmhx1RzkLFus0hzMh5ULoOe/ktTwn4UPwZt6VeAqee9jNn+dQ8I79PFQzLI= =2N0w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From esko.dijk@philips.com Mon Aug 26 07:57:46 2013 Return-Path: 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 A35B911E81B4 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:57:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FuFtwuZEzJbD for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from db9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db9lp0252.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB48221F9FE7 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail41-db9-R.bigfish.com (10.174.16.235) by DB9EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (10.174.14.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:57:30 +0000 Received: from mail41-db9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail41-db9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B27C001C3; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:57:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.7.222; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:mail.philips.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -7 X-BigFish: VPS-7(zz15d6O146fI9251I217bIdd85kzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzzz2dh2a8h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1b2fh1fb3h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h1155h) Received: from mail41-db9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail41-db9 (MessageSwitch) id 137752904784520_30985; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:57:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB9EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.16.247]) by mail41-db9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075CFC40046; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:57:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.philips.com (157.55.7.222) by DB9EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (10.174.14.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:57:23 +0000 Received: from 011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([169.254.3.104]) by 011-DB3MMR1-006.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([10.128.28.56]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.002; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:57:23 +0000 From: "Dijk, Esko" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "Michael Richardson (mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca)" Thread-Topic: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? Thread-Index: AQHOomLiWLQOe+5OH0qX8WENPNdGRZmnir1w Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:57:22 +0000 Message-ID: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CF9EF7@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE7376@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE748B@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <6504.1377480137@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <6504.1377480137@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [194.171.252.103] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: philips.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:57:46 -0000 > I really wonder about these MPL-ignorant nodes which are part of an LLN m= esh (and therefore, I think), speak RPL. > Can you tell me more about them so that I am less skeptical about them be= ing mythical. Nodes that are fully MPL-ignorant could be rightfully called mythical, at l= east I haven't seen an implementation or specification of such nodes within= an MPL-enabled LLN mesh. I'm just considering the option that there could = be Hosts that are unaware of the forwarding protocol used, whose multicast = traffic needs to be interfaced to the MPL domain. If that is an option that= no implementer would ever go for anyway, we can safely stop this discussio= n I think. Background: A similar situation can be found in the ZigBee-IP specification= , that defines "ZIP hosts" in the LLN mesh which do not implement the RPL r= outing protocol. These hosts send their IP packets to their parent "ZIP rou= ter" which further handles the packet using RPL. Sleepy Nodes are for examp= le always ZIP hosts and never ZIP routers. In ZigBee-IP these Hosts are RPL= -ignorant, but not MPL-ignorant. My idea was that there could be another s= pecification X that would define the Hosts also to be MPL-ignorant, for exa= mple to save energy in Sleepy Nodes. regards, Esko ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally p= rotected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addre= ssee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified tha= t any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is st= rictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipien= t, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the= original message. From d.sturek@att.net Mon Aug 26 08:14:15 2013 Return-Path: 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 8D3EF21F9C1D for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:14:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g7G2lADZqPSE for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm11-vm2.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm11-vm2.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.114.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1D221F9BF2 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.196.81.162] by nm11.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Aug 2013 15:14:09 -0000 Received: from [98.138.104.97] by tm8.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Aug 2013 15:14:09 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp117.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Aug 2013 15:14:09 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1377530049; bh=Oslk7dRVNLSCv/Y7EZnudj3QCCsQgHqUe0bZvDgRyZw=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=xXxxYfb9ugmOGSX0V4NOV0FhQ5lCFkYKiOU262uifIw/jECnL4+GD13H/BikbZQivsvyB4y7M6x4gWCLZzyMtrAowtD9vyN3JwuGyxFe2CbIB+Bpx0ij4LhVCtfFi8OmTVe3d9oQtbgwNsXHD68+J3n15gRwLtGKo4xMMtth34M= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 202535.1934.bm@smtp117.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: dEpb3_kVM1lY4gR_8T6FjVtS8FSWb5XOMoNBuJIpPAmaOSC 01k0bs0ifhGy.umpuh9OxdBVB7f.564xoSbTn3xgerqHGgD.VWZN.k5qF3mz SE5aFBBDB6vrkL9Pou3ErR8IKMPVvrG8fekb1a7HereqrXNqP4IfGh2wR3dl Tokespuj5iWEy_ujKLL0k4g3uQx0cCUFUEfwigEqlM4nDu.zx_a8p8QiguyL 3nllOl5f7RPog9chU6HqRokCIr9UJiQEJ3LTnMJUYCGbkGjjXNdMahfklNeT 7BGx1VcyMgiuy9n66PuqLASdTUNlzwUfXOQyMgLM6c2LRVy82t_Tax9uFhqR hI4fXyBKsJOA4mgjllJuekOArtTIsfZw_shTYH2sp9_weNQKaB1I0Cr2EjdH IC2xTP5UqJIYI1o1G9N6M6PfrJYOjzI9cANgflrH0UfGgWxIZmrTXZPng4xQ 4t5oZmEipRgvZVIXqqx9WR10w2BJIDwNu3.W2m5gn18s6V11DADFsNdQUUoA TgnX7Teir22XwCiL4ZPYqSpfgM2_SDh1oOt_OjDretfnSyw-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.0.4] (d.sturek@69.105.137.91 with login) by smtp117.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2013 15:14:09 +0000 UTC User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:14:06 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "Michael Richardson (mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca)" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? In-Reply-To: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CF9EF7@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:14:15 -0000 Hi Esko, I believe the reason that the ZIP specification provides for these host only devices is: 1) The RPL specification allows for RPL unaware leaf nodes. 2) However, for the sake of MPL forwarding, I believe the RPL unaware leaf nodes then do not receive MPL multicasts (which makes sense given many of these devices are sleepy hosts which would likely not be guaranteed to receive the transmission anyway). The implied model used in ZIP is that sleepy host only devices are clients which initiate actions (and would stay awake long enough to receive any expected responses) but don't act as servers. Don On 8/26/13 7:57 AM, "Dijk, Esko" wrote: >> I really wonder about these MPL-ignorant nodes which are part of an LLN >>mesh (and therefore, I think), speak RPL. >> Can you tell me more about them so that I am less skeptical about them >>being mythical. > >Nodes that are fully MPL-ignorant could be rightfully called mythical, at >least I haven't seen an implementation or specification of such nodes >within an MPL-enabled LLN mesh. I'm just considering the option that >there could be Hosts that are unaware of the forwarding protocol used, >whose multicast traffic needs to be interfaced to the MPL domain. If that >is an option that no implementer would ever go for anyway, we can safely >stop this discussion I think. > >Background: A similar situation can be found in the ZigBee-IP >specification, that defines "ZIP hosts" in the LLN mesh which do not >implement the RPL routing protocol. These hosts send their IP packets to >their parent "ZIP router" which further handles the packet using RPL. >Sleepy Nodes are for example always ZIP hosts and never ZIP routers. In >ZigBee-IP these Hosts are RPL-ignorant, but not MPL-ignorant. My idea >was that there could be another specification X that would define the >Hosts also to be MPL-ignorant, for example to save energy in Sleepy Nodes. > >regards, >Esko > >________________________________ >The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally >protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the >addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby >notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this >message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the >intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and >destroy all copies of the original message. > >_______________________________________________ >Roll mailing list >Roll@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Aug 29 07:30:31 2013 Return-Path: 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 185E721F8EB5; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 07:30:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oki84iJrZ97h; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 07:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D5A21F970E; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 07:30:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.70.p1 Message-ID: <20130829143025.14912.93303.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 07:30:25 -0700 Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:30:31 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks= Working Group of the IETF. Title : Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL) Author(s) : Jonathan W. Hui Richard Kelsey Filename : draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2013-08-29 Abstract: This document specifies the Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL) that provides IPv6 multicast forwarding in constrained networks. MPL avoids the need to construct or maintain any multicast forwarding topology, disseminating messages to all MPL Forwarders in an MPL Domain. MPL uses the Trickle algorithm to manage message transmissions for both control and data-plane messages. Different Trickle parameter configurations allow MPL to trade between dissemination latency and transmission efficiency. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From johui@cisco.com Thu Aug 29 07:34:45 2013 Return-Path: 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 7306321F88BA for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MAXWjPhN0a+8 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 07:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F1621F970E for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 07:34:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4184; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377786880; x=1378996480; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=R9LrXNbEmlUUDoYNh/agGQqcpZP08nSef59+Syktwvo=; b=KugMy/pu2pp4jV1tOBxJ4JaffQviL9zc4Yr7iPHgotp+fTQ0W+dWEvA1 3/sZGRLYutBJElAm8EQAaTqF8fr5Wj69q0eLv1U4+N2IMEtJMSMy6jC7M d6+ZSTsc1kJE50ig12aRdppuwVUAYdU3ugGax/CfrN9c0kTdLc0izn3mo w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFALpaH1KtJXG//2dsb2JhbABagwc1SwbAKIEnFnSCJAEBAQMBAQEBNzQbAgEIIhQQJwslAgQTCAGHcgYHBbkrjjUHCXwCOIMcgQADmSKQN4MggWhC X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,983,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="253137990" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2013 14:34:39 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7TEYdsl004164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:39 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.201]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:34:39 -0500 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt Thread-Index: AQHOpMTjRrlElXUTBEiLC9BT+++Etg== Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:38 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20130829143025.14912.93303.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130829143025.14912.93303.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.154.200.35] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <93C62B3B5E5D8C4E9DE2E9FD8D72A29D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:45 -0000 This update attempts to address all of the open tickets. A summary of chan= ges is below. Please provide feedback on these changes. Thanks. 111: - We have not received any other comments from the WG on this matter. As a= result, no action will be taken. 113: - We have not received any other comments from the WG on this matter. As a= result, no action will be taken. 127: - Updated Section 1 to add RFC 3903 (PIM-DM) and RFC 4601 (PIM-SM) as citat= ions for "traditional IPv6 multicast routing and forwarding." - Updated Section 5.5 "worst-case link-layer latency" to "expected link-lay= er latency". - Updated Section 5.5 default value for DATA_MESSAGE_K to 1. - Updated Section 6.2 to indicate 0 or more MPL Seed Info rather than 1 or = more. - Updated Section 8 to define Realm-Local and moved to Protocol Overview se= ction. - Updated Section 10.1 to remove any implication that a device belongs to o= nly one MPL Domain. - Updated Section 11.2 to explicitly indicate state at the receiver. - Updated Section 11.2 to explicitly specify that Trickle timer is reset in= response to external events. 128: - Updated Applicability Statement to indicate that (i) MPL may be used over= LLN and non-LLN networks, (ii) scope is administratively defined, and (iii= ) hosts need not be aware of MPL but can be if they choose to. 129: - Updated Section 4.2 to explicitly indicate that proactive and reactive ar= e not mutually exclusive. Proactive and reactive techniques may be used si= multaneously within an MPL Domain. For example, upon receiving a new MPL D= ata messages when both proactive and reactive forwarding techniques are ena= bled, an MPL Forwarder will proactively retransmit the MPL Data Message a l= imited number of times and schedule further transmissions upon receiving MP= L Control Messages. 130: - Updated Section 5.5 to clarify the meaning of DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATI= ONS. 131: - Updated Section 5.5 to clarify the choice of default parameter values in = the document and specifically why setting IMIN=3DIMAX for data messages onl= y is acceptable. 132: - Updated Section 8 to define Realm-Local and moved to Protocol Overview se= ction. -- Jonathan Hui On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:30 AM, wrote: >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy network= s Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (M= PL) > Author(s) : Jonathan W. Hui > Richard Kelsey > Filename : draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt > Pages : 25 > Date : 2013-08-29 >=20 > Abstract: > This document specifies the Multicast Protocol for Low power and > Lossy Networks (MPL) that provides IPv6 multicast forwarding in > constrained networks. MPL avoids the need to construct or maintain > any multicast forwarding topology, disseminating messages to all MPL > Forwarders in an MPL Domain. MPL uses the Trickle algorithm to > manage message transmissions for both control and data-plane > messages. Different Trickle parameter configurations allow MPL to > trade between dissemination latency and transmission efficiency. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 16:08:50 2013 Return-Path: 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 8A29521F894E for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:08:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0oVxmC+xMpof for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0FF21F8415 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50535 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VFBKZ-0000C5-Ek; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:08:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:08:47 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/111#comment:2 Message-ID: <083.f9ec90f1ddb8a98c67c0b7c288dbeacc@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <068.d297e97474c3aa6d3b0200f33881db3c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 111 In-Reply-To: <068.d297e97474c3aa6d3b0200f33881db3c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #111: MPL relation with RPL is not clear X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:08:50 -0000 #111: MPL relation with RPL is not clear Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:38 +0000 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt ''This update attempts to address all of the open tickets. A summary of changes is below. Please provide feedback on these changes. Thanks. 111: - We have not received any other comments from the WG on this matter. As a result, no action will be taken. ...'' Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08103.html -- ----------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: abdussalambaryun@gmail.com | Owner: Abdussalam Baryun Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: Multicast, RPL, Trickle | ----------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 16:10:57 2013 Return-Path: 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 098DF21F9EFE for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:10:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p3nlzEm1ch3K for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F69F21F9EE5 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50717 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VFBMZ-0002Lh-4Q; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:10:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:10:51 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/113#comment:1 Message-ID: <083.c292d3f08fe776bd263b9f11debda6c4@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <068.911b32936c333d1785fb02055eb8148d@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 113 In-Reply-To: <068.911b32936c333d1785fb02055eb8148d@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mariainesrobles@gmail.com, draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130829231056.4F69F21F9EE5@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #113: MPL Processing Section X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:10:57 -0000 #113: MPL Processing Section Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:38 +0000 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt ''This update attempts to address all of the open tickets. A summary of changes is below. Please provide feedback on these changes. Thanks. 113: - We have not received any other comments from the WG on this matter. As a result, no action will be taken. ...'' Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08103.html -- ----------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: abdussalambaryun@gmail.com | Owner: Abdussalam Baryun Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: milestone1 Component: trickle-mcast | Version: 1.0 Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: Multicast, RPL, Trickle | ----------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 16:22:47 2013 Return-Path: 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 6A44911E818B for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:22:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8qJgSSuLBpN0 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9724711E817D for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51198 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VFBY0-00082D-JC; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:22:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:22:40 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/127#comment:4 Message-ID: <082.3cff0d074fe7e4363ed04c3051f1b8de@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 127 In-Reply-To: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:22:47 -0000 #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:38 +0000 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt "This update attempts to address all of the open tickets. A summary of changes is below. Please provide feedback on these changes. Thanks.[[BR]] ...[[BR]] 127: - Updated Section 1 to add RFC 3903 (PIM-DM) and RFC 4601 (PIM-SM) as citations for "traditional IPv6 multicast routing and forwarding." - Updated Section 5.5 "worst-case link-layer latency" to "expected link- layer latency". - Updated Section 5.5 default value for DATA_MESSAGE_K to 1. - Updated Section 6.2 to indicate 0 or more MPL Seed Info rather than 1 or more. - Updated Section 8 to define Realm-Local and moved to Protocol Overview section. - Updated Section 10.1 to remove any implication that a device belongs to only one MPL Domain. - Updated Section 11.2 to explicitly indicate state at the receiver. - Updated Section 11.2 to explicitly specify that Trickle timer is reset in response to external events." Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08103.html -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 16:29:01 2013 Return-Path: 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 65A5C11E817D for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:29:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rnC6iT95Npcu for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E000A11E8192 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:28:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51581 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VFBdz-000703-G9; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:28:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, mcr@sandelman.ca, rdroms@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:28:51 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/128#comment:4 Message-ID: <082.4e900865b0fbf292b6fc5e33d6503a2d@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 128 In-Reply-To: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, mcr@sandelman.ca, rdroms@cisco.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:29:01 -0000 #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:38 +0000 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt "This update attempts to address all of the open tickets. A summary of changes is below. Please provide feedback on these changes. Thanks.[[BR]] ...[[BR]] 128: - Updated Applicability Statement to indicate that (i) MPL may be used over LLN and non-LLN networks, (ii) scope is administratively defined, and (iii) hosts need not be aware of MPL but can be if they choose to. " Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08103.html Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07946.html -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 16:35:34 2013 Return-Path: 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 849F721F9ADD for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:35:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uLLpGWHDxTnz for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321F221F9A97 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52014 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VFBkJ-0005sx-41; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:35:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, rdroms@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:35:23 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/129#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.c53b887921203ff02b64d18ef29ca24a@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.eb8cd06a193daa93167f1567d59337cc@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 129 In-Reply-To: <067.eb8cd06a193daa93167f1567d59337cc@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, rdroms@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #129: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Proactive and Reactive Forwarding should be mutually exclusive within the same MPL Domain? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:35:34 -0000 #129: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Proactive and Reactive Forwarding should be mutually exclusive within the same MPL Domain? Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:38 +0000 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast- 05.txt “This update attempts to address all of the open tickets. A summary of changes is below. Please provide feedback on these changes. Thanks. ... 129: - Updated Section 4.2 to explicitly indicate that proactive and reactive are not mutually exclusive. Proactive and reactive techniques may be used simultaneously within an MPL Domain. For example, upon receiving a new MPL Data messages when both proactive and reactive forwarding techniques are enabled, an MPL Forwarder will proactively retransmit the MPL Data Message a limited number of times and schedule further transmissions upon receiving MPL Control Messages.” Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08103.html Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07947.html -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 16:37:49 2013 Return-Path: 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 AEE4511E818B for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:37:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uS5Zo66FTbmP for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D05E11E80D2 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52051 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VFBmZ-0003YG-5h; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:37:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:37:43 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/130#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.6f15c169664597e70b1e6efbe5a69406@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.0d5d0fe70fe1dd4413131ee8d5d0a3ce@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 130 In-Reply-To: <067.0d5d0fe70fe1dd4413131ee8d5d0a3ce@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #130: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - meaning of DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:37:49 -0000 #130: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - meaning of DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:38 +0000 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast- 05.txt “This update attempts to address all of the open tickets. A summary of changes is below. Please provide feedback on these changes. Thanks. ... 130: - Updated Section 5.5 to clarify the meaning of DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS.” Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08103.html -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 16:40:09 2013 Return-Path: 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 E892111E819C for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:40:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FNEjbV1VeY8D for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:40:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB1311E80D2 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:40:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52095 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VFBor-0003Jd-UM; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:40:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:40:04 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/131#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.e32bdebda21856a875434cb650c5f3ef@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.e4de15ce80832e02dc4336e884c41db0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 131 In-Reply-To: <067.e4de15ce80832e02dc4336e884c41db0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #131: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Parameter-IMAX-equal-to-IMIX X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:40:10 -0000 #131: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Parameter-IMAX-equal-to-IMIX Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:38 +0000 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt “This update attempts to address all of the open tickets. A summary of changes is below. Please provide feedback on these changes. Thanks. ... 131: - Updated Section 5.5 to clarify the choice of default parameter values in the document and specifically why setting IMIN=IMAX for data messages only is acceptable." Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08103.html -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Aug 29 16:41:26 2013 Return-Path: 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 872AF11E818B for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:41:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35+YEzq-z2DG for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D008C11E80D2 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52157 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VFBq7-0001YN-EX; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:41:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, rdroms@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:41:23 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/132#comment:3 Message-ID: <082.333875ed0733ed2b2ad2d7cfba38ad63@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 132 In-Reply-To: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, rdroms@cisco.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:41:26 -0000 #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:34:38 +0000 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt “This update attempts to address all of the open tickets. A summary of changes is below. Please provide feedback on these changes. Thanks. ... 132: - Updated Section 8 to define Realm-Local and moved to Protocol Overview section.” Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08103.html -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From Randy.Turner@landisgyr.com Fri Aug 30 10:00:30 2013 Return-Path: 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 5C69C21F8423 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:00:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQO4MD-rwF8w for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3lp0084.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F9B21F9B85 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DBXPR01MB015.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.255.176.37) by DBXPR01MB014.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.255.176.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.745.25; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:59:30 +0000 Received: from DBXPR01MB015.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([169.254.12.208]) by DBXPR01MB015.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([169.254.12.208]) with mapi id 15.00.0745.000; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:59:30 +0000 From: "Turner, Randy" To: "roll@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: RPL MIB Thread-Index: Ac6logq3/vh0oGNlTpWt+jWe8hDnVg== Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:59:30 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [148.80.254.2] x-forefront-prvs: 0954EE4910 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(41574002)(199002)(189002)(51856001)(74366001)(76176001)(80022001)(65816001)(77982001)(59766001)(83072001)(76796001)(33646001)(16236675002)(76786001)(81816001)(83322001)(81686001)(46102001)(50986001)(47976001)(63696002)(47736001)(79102001)(49866001)(4396001)(74316001)(81542001)(74876001)(69226001)(221733001)(54356001)(54316002)(77096001)(66066001)(56816003)(74706001)(80976001)(74502001)(74662001)(47446002)(53806001)(56776001)(31966008)(76482001)(81342001)(24736002)(215093002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DBXPR01MB014; H:DBXPR01MB015.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com; CLIP:148.80.254.2; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d608e067739e4221a948fd420def23bdDBXPR01MB015eurprd01pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: landisgyr.com Subject: [Roll] RPL MIB X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:00:48 -0000 --_000_d608e067739e4221a948fd420def23bdDBXPR01MB015eurprd01pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On the IETF ROLL WG page, I was looking for a current (not expired) version= of the RPL MIB draft, but there doesn't appear to be one. Can someone let me know what the status of this work is ? Thanks! Randy P PLEASE CONSIDER OUR ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL. This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally = privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized represent= ative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using, copying or d= istributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have = received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by retu= rn e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank = you. --_000_d608e067739e4221a948fd420def23bdDBXPR01MB015eurprd01pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

On the IETF ROLL WG page, I was looking for a curren= t (not expired) version of the RPL MIB draft, but there doesn’t appea= r to be one.

 

Can someone let me know what the status of this work= is ?

 

Thanks!
Randy

 


P PLEASE = CONSIDER OUR ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL.

This e-mail (including any attachments) is confi= dential and may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient= or an authorized representative of an intended recipient, you are prohibit= ed from using, copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have received th= is e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail a= nd delete all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.

--_000_d608e067739e4221a948fd420def23bdDBXPR01MB015eurprd01pro_-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Aug 30 10:52:07 2013 Return-Path: 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 F1C0A21F9C8E for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FDMFvbSuDu5w for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEC321F9928 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F0820184 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 3BE5363AF0; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:51:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293AF636C7 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:51:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL MIB X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:52:07 -0000 --=-=-= Turner, Randy wrote: > On the IETF ROLL WG page, I was looking for a current (not expired) > version of the RPL MIB draft, but there doesn?t appear to be one. It likely expired. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sehgal-roll-rpl-mib/ > Can someone let me know what the status of this work is ? The WG has discussed this question a few times and has not reached any consensus. Here is the summary: 1) many feel that an **SNMP** Agent is not going to fit into constrained devices. 2) Jurgen has demonstrated it does fit into a class 2 device on using Contiki. 3) others have pointed out that SNMP is not the only way to deal with a MIB, and the important things in a MIB is the set of statistics which one might collect, and transmit in *some* way. 4) opinions have ranged from HTTP / CoAP to NetCONF/YANG as other transport alternatives to SNMP. I think that it is simply early for many people to talk about having consistent sets of statistics... BUT. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PROVE ME WRONG. In particular, I think that *some* standard way to get the network adjacency matrix (as well as the DODAG) out of motes would be very useful for network operators. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUiDbrIqHRg3pndX9AQKTEwQA1rCjaJkDMqsWYs5r/J2EOsHs4lw2C98l wl3b6QeusHHh0GUVT52Usb2iX/Yilf5ZKJY5I9h0qm0yVPQK3e+G9+z+0KqOYONt GuhOP1Oh5tHLZAShhg3kIZcTJwsBSSNFP2oux+bn+ouGnsHL+aT56AdZMuIH26+Y f/ekbSZFyH0= =Tt8C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--