From cabo@tzi.org Sat Feb 1 01:34:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62391A1F66; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 01:34:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O0OxaZxLu9Ss; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 01:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 897381A04CD; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 01:34:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s119YR2S000249; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:34:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54892C3C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.44.60]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93FC156B; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:34:26 +0100 (CET) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:34:24 +0100 To: dtls-iot@ietf.org, core , ace@ietf.org, "6lo@ietf.org WG" <6lo@ietf.org>, roll WG , lwip@ietf.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Subject: [Roll] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF89, early draft version X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 01 Feb 2014 09:34:36 -0000 A first draft version of the IETF88 agenda is out. ** THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE ** for conflict resolution,=20 so please don't make travel arrangements based on it. Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda built from that. =20 All times are UTC (UTC-0000). The Constrained Node/Network group meetings are nicely spread out over = the week. As usual, we have one conflict with oauth (on Tuesday); since much of = the CoRE security work is moving over to ACE this is survivable (we'll = do any remaining security-related CoRE work on Friday then). Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten MONDAY, March 3, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Buckingham APP appsawg Applications Area Working Group WG - = Combined with APPAREA 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Blenheim APP httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG Sovereign INT dnssd Extensions for Scalable DNS Service = Discovery WG 1520-1620 Afternoon Session II Viscount OPS eman Energy Management WG Sovereign SEC *** dice DTLS In Constrained Environments WG Palace C SEC httpauth Hypertext Transfer Protocol = Authentication WG 1630-1730 Afternoon Session III Palace C SEC httpauth Hypertext Transfer Protocol = Authentication WG TUESDAY, March 4, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Park Suite APP *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Sovereign INT homenet Home Networking WG Palace C SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG 1300-1400 Afternoon Session I Viscount INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG 1600-1830 Afternoon Session III Viscount INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Balmoral SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG Sovereign TSV rmcat RTP Media Congestion Avoidance = Techniques WG WEDNESDAY, March 5, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Balmoral APP *** ace Authentication and Authorization for = Constrained Environments BOF Sovereign OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Blenheim APP httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG Viscount TSV taps Transport Services BOF 1520-1620 Afternoon Session II Balmoral INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG Buckingham RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting Blenheim TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1630-1730 Afternoon Session III Balmoral INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG Buckingham RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting THURSDAY, March 6, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Viscount TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Buckingham INT *** 6tisch IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE = 802.15.4e WG Sovereign OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Viscount SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting 1520-1650 Afternoon Session II Viscount RTG *** roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks WG 1700-1830 Afternoon Session III Balmoral INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG Blenheim SEC jose Javascript Object Signing and Encryption = WG FRIDAY, March 7, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Richmond/Chelsea/Tower APP uta Using TLS in Applications WG Buckingham TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1150-1320 Afternoon Session 1 Buckingham APP *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Balmoral APP json JavaScript Object Notation WG From cabo@tzi.org Sat Feb 1 02:10:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66DA1A0532; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 02:10:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5t_BoqUYC9Z; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 02:10:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE5C1A04CD; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 02:10:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s11AAdwS011188; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 11:10:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54892C3C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.44.60]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8032C582; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 11:10:38 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 11:10:36 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: dtls-iot@ietf.org, core , ace@ietf.org, "6lo@ietf.org WG" <6lo@ietf.org>, roll WG , lwip@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Subject: Re: [Roll] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF89, early draft version X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 01 Feb 2014 10:10:48 -0000 On 01 Feb 2014, at 10:34, Carsten Bormann wrote: > so please don't make travel arrangements based on it. ... and it is probably worth pointing out that right after the IETF on = Friday, there will be a plugtest close to the IETF hotel. If you are = interested in the constrained node/network space, have a look and = register soon (registration is free of charge). http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/741-plugtests-2014-coap4 (The title focuses on CoAP, but there will be some 6LoWPAN = interoperability testing as well. Pick and choose.) Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten (PS.: The 6tisch people run their own interop specifically for 6tisch = during the IETF week, but everyone involved in 6tisch already knows = that.) From mcr@sandelman.ca Sat Feb 1 07:36:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93281ADF61 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:36:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.029 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0k_57tKrIMWU for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9201A02DA for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C0820028 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 11:52:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 7249C64656; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:36:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1AE64655 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:36:04 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: roll@ietf.org X-Attribution: mcr 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: [Roll] London IETF89 session X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 01 Feb 2014 15:36:12 -0000 --=-=-= We have a thursday afternoon session, March 6, 2014. 1520-1650 GMT Thursday Afternoon Session II Viscount RTG roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks -- 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) iQCVAwUBUu0UYYqHRg3pndX9AQKj4gQA3X0aBC95/eVhqhPra9hwe+aFdC5nt632 ETMDfzNlFapDfLbZE12tHOAvGIdp+4SRpyBhnJD0NKbofMI7/E0c+h7GV2d7Foq3 OTWHElsR3+HMl/WrcegkX1K/yFt2SWQPEBqurWFlfr0JjGupSaLznfrGo44m/8wL iQVIc3EHxVM= =r5J4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From stokcons@xs4all.nl Mon Feb 3 05:55:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9151B1A0219 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 05:55:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IXZQyqZ4htuw for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 05:55:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5481A0245 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 02:23:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube9.xs4all.net [194.109.20.207]) by smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s13ANUXx039345 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:23:31 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl) Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-163-223.w90-28.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.28.42.223]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:23:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:23:30 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: roll@ietf.org Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: <4C62FB50-C8E8-4CEA-BD42-B64076883379@gmail.com> References: <20140124201637.988.3372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4C62FB50-C8E8-4CEA-BD42-B64076883379@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0d753074c679b2f79f1ba4acb18cd7f3@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (qTnRprSmhGSDhKuVB1RlzzZFQEhPQiYw) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, 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, 03 Feb 2014 13:55:14 -0000 I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues raised during the WG last call concerning our applications, have been addressed adequately. peter van der stok Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-01-27 16:58: > I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues I > raised during the WG last call have been addressed and, in my opinion, > the document is now ready for publication. > > - Ralph > > > On Jan 24, 2014, at 3:16 PM 1/24/14, The IESG > wrote: > >> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and >> Lossy >> networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: >> - 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)' >> as Proposed Standard >> >> This is a second last call, the first one having been abandoned to >> send >> the document back to the working group. But the latest revision >> addresses >> comments that were received during the first last call. >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments may >> be >> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> 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 file can be obtained via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ballot/ >> >> >> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/ >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Wed Feb 5 07:28:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902881A016E for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:28:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xEHKy8qfY3fD for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:28:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-x22d.google.com (mail-vb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DB31A00FD for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m10so393975vbh.18 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 07:28:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eqKjpcoAF+icmLbYn/PBbHhLUZaUimz2t4JvbUCrjpg=; b=Y5c0YmZgh5DnW//B4YQ1HoUVEJYv4FhmgojkIYKdDKjw4AILNRZ+fG2ILFIXssbQD7 S2lrOvKHAcO/gSpTLEC0SKo4d8WcYdeAaQ2vIzv73f5hRuTd6PLwnlvhC61Uc9fsJr6O S+GYoYsG3XNvudGyni6TmvWXfxB9AReCk1n8Zf8GFfY1ymEL7xvQ5U5uGnrpmSzoewYR xdC84gHxhqyqS1v0mrfu3BeRNyazLAJzAd6Mubmd2SZk7j39jwomHjhtuArogerJES1g hFUIWvs0edooQxxDXH0rD2Vx1+filFhbZ4j2ggqcQ4F4ynbM7lGY0k06Mi9uZj2BQjHB I4dw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.139.198 with SMTP id f6mr331499vcu.47.1391614093996; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 07:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:28:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:28:13 -0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343940bcb73e04f1aa67a6 Cc: kent@bbn.com Subject: [Roll] Start of WG Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 05 Feb 2014 15:28:16 -0000 --047d7b343940bcb73e04f1aa67a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello, This email starts a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06. This last call will be from February 5, 2014 until February 14, 2014. You can see the document at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security-threats/ This document had previously been through a publication request in early 2013, but was returned to the WG for further work, which it received in the summer and fall of 2013. You can see edits since the previous publication request at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01&difftype=--html&submit=Go%21&url2=draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 This list of tickets can be see at: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac, tickets #117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 133, 115, 116, 119, or visit: http://goo.gl/A5uYb0 (We have cut it short from traditional 2 week period so that comments will be received in time to submit a new revision prior to the IETF89 document cut-off time) Thanks and Regards, Ines Robles. --047d7b343940bcb73e04f1aa67a6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

This email starts a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06. This last call will be from February 5, 2014 until February 14, 2014.

You can see the document at:
=A0 =A0 http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rol= l-security-threats/

This document had previously been through a publication request in early 2013, but was returned to the WG for further work, which it received in the=
summer and fall of 2013. =A0You can see edits since the previous publicatio= n
request at:
=A0 =A0 http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?= url1=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01&difftype=3D--html&submit= =3DGo%21&url2=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06

This list of tickets can be see at: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac,=
tickets #117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 133, 115, 116, 119, o= r visit:
=A0 =A0 http://goo.gl/A5= uYb0

(We have cut it short from traditional 2 week period so that comments will = be
received in time to submit a new revision prior to the IETF89 document
cut-off time)

Thanks and Regards,

Ines Robles.
--047d7b343940bcb73e04f1aa67a6-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Feb 5 07:32:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689ED1A016F; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:32:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.019 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qaBH2YdNmSWd; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:32:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E571A0192; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:32:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0515020033; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 11:49:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 04A60647CA; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:32:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E318A63B88; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:32:49 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , tisch <6tisch@ietf.org> X-Attribution: mcr 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: [Roll] proposal to abandon draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 05 Feb 2014 15:32:54 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Last summer during the chartering process of 6tisch, I asked if 6tisch want= ed or or ought to adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability. We did not reach a clear conclusion, and agreed to revisit the question later on. EXEC SUMMARY: I want to propose that the ROLL WG abandon this document as not particula= rly useful to real industry. If this document normatively references 6tisch= ,=20 it will in essence be obsoleted by the documents it references. If the document does no normatively reference 6tisch, it may have no value. 6tisch will not adopt this document, as it has equivalent documents alrea= dy planned. The value of this document may have been simply to make the motiviation for creating 6tisch clear. AUDIENCE: First, I want to recognize that the group of people working on 6tisch are people who think that they can not deploy into industrial settings without availability of deterministic behaviour. Thus I want to acknowledge that asking 6tisch people if deterministic behaviour is useful is preaching to the choir. Second, I would ask that those of you who are in other SDOs that deal with this kind of thing (IEC, IEEE, ZigbeeIP) where I, a non-member, can not post, to please forward this email and/or a link to the thread. BACKGROUND: The document deals with using RPL in Industrial settings, and does a very good job of explaining how things operate in that space. The document includes a diagram in section 2.1.1, on page 7: > It appears from the above sections that whether and the way RPL can > be applied for a given flow depends both on the deployment scenario > and on the class of application / traffic. At a high level, this can > be summarized by the following matrix: =20=20=20 > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > | Phase \ Class | 0 1 2 3 4 5 | > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+ > | Construction | X X X X | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > | Planned startup | X X X X | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > | Normal operation | ? ? ? | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > | Planned shutdown | X X X X | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > |Plant decommissioning| X X X X | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > | Recovery and repair | X X X X X X | > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ >=20 >=20 > ? : typically usable for all but higher-rate classes 0,1 PS traffic =3D=3D=3D An X denotes that a non-deterministric LLN using RPL could be used in uring many phases of a plant, but it can not be used for class 0,1 traffic during "Normal Operation". That is, an RPL LLN is useful during excepti= onal times, but not during normal times. Whether normal operation can be ser= ved by a deterministric (6tisch) network, or whether it will require wired operation is clearly going to be decided on a case-by-case basis. QUESTION: The group of deployments for which "Normal Operation" can be satisfied by= a 6tisch based solution, would in general be covered by 6tisch. In particular whatever (security) bootstrap process used by 6tisch would be used during the other phases, so any security analysis done in this document is not useful. If the deployment can not be satisfied by 6tisch (e.g Normal Operation requires wires, etc.), then this document may well have some value.=20 In that case, this document might have value, but we have not at present identified the constituency that would be willing to work on this documen= t. Does such a consitutency exist?=20 If it does not, then I suggest that it is not worth the cost to the IETF to publish this document. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 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) iQCVAwUBUvJZoYqHRg3pndX9AQKG3AQA6lOtiN77FLHqSOaz9n9Dq1iA4fnrDgI8 z6Id+Y3GGBz89tlQEfhbjqn6C5rzwP0rvzQ0mr9E9QcLGIEeppxXBHDc8CebirPJ f142pB3Do8BnMKOyicXtNh2tTWeAYZpX99PHjB2fzUdzRo8NdtN+YGoTvDPJciWA nGThmUyZIKo= =cW/e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Wed Feb 5 07:50:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DCBC1A01BB for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:50:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C0DGqtzkeJ4b for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:50:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x22b.google.com (mail-vc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A351A0205 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:50:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id le5so423773vcb.2 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 07:50:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ketDiVT+DhH8N9s2c96aDlAC7GaBf/ZPKswv7JbtZZQ=; b=ahl7iEmwJlyKGB+L46Q0lSS2ddeXQ9cexT7pHeOlmaoVKzHS53Yr/vmruU1pUp/hc1 VfnTz2LeyfIUE0//J/vnoQDdnbGDsXGc7yZodeTlejTMBro/3rleP8Dl0wcWLly8wNNN Po1Yy2eOj7jUiRj7xiHLkqCKP/sVAmMoHETww9YFY8mzCK6hHiQTm5U4dhXbh1J92lSA Up3rTUc4Ln4fWhJ1j9vwOe4Rb8MmAYcTU6LQbfMLuVpTNzumXtF+l5btn3UWDu6WgK8R BN3Kk5KpFzOWGsWI41lMHNIPKqqURIJ9xSrHhXODhLev2M5UUCkJzFN6vnwLd6zSYprC uFjA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.168.142 with SMTP id zw14mr1050137veb.33.1391615430966; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 07:50:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:50:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:50:30 -0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6da0286d45f804f1aab710 Cc: skent@bbn.com Subject: [Roll] Start of WG Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 05 Feb 2014 15:50:48 -0000 --047d7b6da0286d45f804f1aab710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello, This email starts a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06. This last call will be from February 5, 2014 until February 14, 2014. You can see the document at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security-threats/ This document had previously been through a publication request in early 2013, but was returned to the WG for further work, which it received in the summer and fall of 2013. You can see edits since the previous publication request at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01&difftype=--html&submit=Go%21&url2=draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 This list of tickets can be see at: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac, tickets #117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 133, 115, 116, 119, or visit: http://goo.gl/A5uYb0 (We have cut it short from traditional 2 week period so that comments will be received in time to submit a new revision prior to the IETF89 document cut-off time) Thanks and Regards, Ines Robles. --047d7b6da0286d45f804f1aab710 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

This email starts a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06. This last call will be from February 5, 2014 until February 14, 2014.

You can see the document at:
=A0 =A0 http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rol= l-security-threats/

This document had previously been through a publication request in early 2013, but was returned to the WG for further work, which it received in the=
summer and fall of 2013. =A0You can see edits since the previous publicatio= n
request at:
=A0 =A0 http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?= url1=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01&difftype=3D--html&submit= =3DGo%21&url2=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06

This list of tickets can be see at: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac,=
tickets #117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 133, 115, 116, 119, o= r visit:
=A0 =A0 http://goo.gl/A5= uYb0

(We have cut it short from traditional 2 week period so that comments will = be
received in time to submit a new revision prior to the IETF89 document
cut-off time)

Thanks and Regards,

Ines Roble= s.


--047d7b6da0286d45f804f1aab710-- From pthubert@cisco.com Wed Feb 5 10:05:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 567861A0124 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:05:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.035 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Eywq5WZrAi55 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:05:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421EE1A0122 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:05:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10940; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391623549; x=1392833149; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=4FeXH8vE5v+QZ/PirlZxde00m1df+rbA4bIm58J+3Sk=; b=h+iV9LEytu64xKYG/UBo82ji1AxuaT45S8eT4H2ihBrpEnqeSXed+Rst SLKJ5geSwG/Bzepv/p05JK2jknsRRk+0W8iixScggUIW6Ht3TnLfHCmWu 4w0dN3pK2NFEngBFqsEbn+b221Cutd5Zpel1+jjcNCdOAgDKK9XqkVEOV o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlEFAKd88lKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgkhEOFe+TIEQFnSCJQEBAQQtTBACAQgOAwQBAQsdBzIUCQgCBAENBQgBh2gDEQ3FYg2JDheMYIE9BwEBHjEGAYMkgRQElEKWCoMtgWgJFyI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,787,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="18211033" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2014 18:05:48 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s15I5ngt007500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:05:49 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.57]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:05:48 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Ines Robles , "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Thread-Topic: Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags Thread-Index: AQHPGIybaTJ6ApR1/0qpQGZb5oitF5qnBu3w Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:05:48 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:05:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.49.80.59] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8416FB771xmbrcdx01ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Michael Richardson , roll Subject: Re: [Roll] Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 05 Feb 2014 18:05:52 -0000 --_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8416FB771xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Ines: This is a draft that was initially at 6LoWPAN, but the WG was in flux and p= eople at ROLL asked the authors to revive the draft so we presented it ther= e. It is related to ROLL in that it enables routing fragments but still it is = a bit farfetched, unless ROLL recharters in that direction in the future. We presented the work at 6lo, but there was a mitigated reception. Carsten in particular opposed the work, and complained that it moved places= , plus has doubts about the retry mechanism. Would you wish ROLL to continue that work? Cheers, Pascal From: Ines Robles [mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com] Sent: jeudi 23 janvier 2014 23:44 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Jonathan Hui (johui) Cc: Michael Richardson; roll Subject: Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags Hi Pascal and Jonathan, Thank you very much for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags-02, Abstract: In order to be routed, a fragmented packet must be reassembled at every hop of a multihop link where lower layer fragmentation occurs. Considering that the IPv6 minimum MTU is 1280 bytes and that an an 802.15.4 frame can have a payload limited to 74 bytes in the worst case, a packet might end up fragmented into as many as 18 fragments at the 6LoWPAN shim layer. If a single one of those fragments is lost in transmission, all fragments must be resent, further contributing to the congestion that might have caused the initial packet loss. This draft introduces a simple protocol to forward and recover individual fragments that might be lost over multiple hops between 6LoWPAN endpoints. We would like to know please how you see that this draft is aligned with th= e roll charter, it seems that the intention is in this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-arc= hive/web/roll/current/msg07784.html, is that correct? do you have some addi= tional information for intention? Thank you in advance, Michael and Ines. --_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8416FB771xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Ines:

 <= /p>

This is a draft that was = initially at 6LoWPAN, but the WG was in flux and people at ROLL asked the a= uthors to revive the draft so we presented it there.

It is related to ROLL in = that it enables routing fragments but still it is a bit farfetched, unless = ROLL recharters in that direction in the future.

We presented the work at = 6lo, but there was a mitigated reception.

Carsten in particular opp= osed the work, and complained that it moved places, plus has doubts about t= he retry mechanism.

 <= /p>

Would you wish ROLL to co= ntinue that work?

 <= /p>

Cheers,=

 <= /p>

Pascal<= /p>

 <= /p>

From: Ines Rob= les [mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com]
Sent: jeudi 23 janvier 2014 23:44
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Jonathan Hui (johui)
Cc: Michael Richardson; roll
Subject: Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags

 

Hi Pascal and Jonathan,

 

Thank = you very much for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags-02,=

 

Abstra= ct:

 

In ord= er to be routed, a fragmented packet must be reassembled at
  every hop of a multihop link where lower layer fragmentation oc= curs.
  Considering that the IPv6 minimum MTU is 1280 bytes and that an= an
  802.15.4 frame can have a payload limited to 74 bytes in the wo= rst
  case, a packet might end up fragmented into as many as 18 fragm= ents
  at the 6LoWPAN shim layer.  If a single one of those fragm= ents is
  lost in transmission, all fragments must be resent, further
  contributing to the congestion that might have caused the initi= al
  packet loss.  This draft introduces a simple protocol to f= orward and
  recover individual fragments that might be lost over multiple h= ops
  between 6LoWPAN endpoints.

 

We wou= ld like to know please how you see that this draft is aligned with the roll= charter,

it see= ms that the intention is in this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg077= 84.html, is that correct? do you have some additional information for intention?

 

Thank = you in advance,


Michael and Ines.

--_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8416FB771xmbrcdx01ciscoc_-- From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Wed Feb 5 13:01:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5A51A020A for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:01:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MREhiOEXe4yK for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:01:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x230.google.com (mail-ve0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8B21A0202 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:01:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id oz11so784756veb.35 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:01:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jfy8Mn5cnWDcLvY0N6e5/IRfMUDp01qxL6pdISIWGk0=; b=Fs2ph6f00MA9Hmb8zmwHhAO5mAmzVB21yTLaaxVKJ4xUAGA9pk1shdIC8fSork/TZz gnhD2RA+pAEC00S9gJPTIuBm181H8ioHA9d/u0UfBC/Uy/nxKEmWQDwzakQvvW1EVXiH g6Lcat6G3cl00s6fcaoc9hzF2l3jMyrW7yp2yQSXhYM/gWj9rzCYXLaHfPc5SoB77WZ8 TwrQF7uyK5zOlT+2ngXolm0xkGYeQ0ggpRypSL14kng4oVzW3K/nWATL9JLYSRMv9yNm hhbM4I2Y5u1qVsJ0dT+E0nM37/Ygqlh3rAOhOFEptE64F18tSU53/v1idBwCLu7mBdTC v6hA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.145.9 with SMTP id sq9mr152526veb.53.1391634116307; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:01:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:01:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 19:01:56 -0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d645a28f1b104f1af114b Cc: Michael Richardson , roll , "Jonathan Hui \(johui\)" Subject: Re: [Roll] Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 05 Feb 2014 21:01:59 -0000 --047d7b5d645a28f1b104f1af114b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Pascal, Thank you for your reply. Please correct me if I am wrong, It seems to me that the routing fragments are not aligned with the current roll charter. In case that we do a roll-rechartering we could discuss whether integrate this draft or not. Independent of the result, we want to say thank you very much for your hard work put in this document. Please any comments are very welcome, Kind Regards, Ines. 2014-02-05 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) : > Hello Ines: > > > > This is a draft that was initially at 6LoWPAN, but the WG was in flux and > people at ROLL asked the authors to revive the draft so we presented it > there. > > It is related to ROLL in that it enables routing fragments but still it is > a bit farfetched, unless ROLL recharters in that direction in the future. > > We presented the work at 6lo, but there was a mitigated reception. > > Carsten in particular opposed the work, and complained that it moved > places, plus has doubts about the retry mechanism. > > > > Would you wish ROLL to continue that work? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Pascal > > > > *From:* Ines Robles [mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com] > *Sent:* jeudi 23 janvier 2014 23:44 > *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Jonathan Hui (johui) > *Cc:* Michael Richardson; roll > *Subject:* Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags > > > > Hi Pascal and Jonathan, > > > > Thank you very much for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags-02, > > > > Abstract: > > > > In order to be routed, a fragmented packet must be reassembled at > every hop of a multihop link where lower layer fragmentation occurs. > Considering that the IPv6 minimum MTU is 1280 bytes and that an an > 802.15.4 frame can have a payload limited to 74 bytes in the worst > case, a packet might end up fragmented into as many as 18 fragments > at the 6LoWPAN shim layer. If a single one of those fragments is > lost in transmission, all fragments must be resent, further > contributing to the congestion that might have caused the initial > packet loss. This draft introduces a simple protocol to forward and > recover individual fragments that might be lost over multiple hops > between 6LoWPAN endpoints. > > > > We would like to know please how you see that this draft is aligned with > the roll charter, > > it seems that the intention is in this thread: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07784.html, is that > correct? do you have some additional information for intention? > > > > Thank you in advance, > > > Michael and Ines. > --047d7b5d645a28f1b104f1af114b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Pascal,


Thank you for your r= eply.


Please correct me if= I am wrong, It seems to me that the routing fragments are not aligned with= the current roll charter.


In case that we do a= roll-rechartering we could discuss whether integrate this draft or not. In= dependent of the result, we want to say thank you very much for your hard w= ork put in this document.


Please any comments = are very welcome,


Kind Regards,=


Ines.


2014-02-05 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <= pthubert@cisco.com>:

Hello Ines:=

=A0<= /p>

This is a draft that was = initially at 6LoWPAN, but the WG was in flux and people at ROLL asked the a= uthors to revive the draft so we presented it there.

It is related to ROLL in = that it enables routing fragments but still it is a bit farfetched, unless = ROLL recharters in that direction in the future.

We presented the work at = 6lo, but there was a mitigated reception.

Carsten in particular opp= osed the work, and complained that it moved places, plus has doubts about t= he retry mechanism.

=A0<= /p>

Would you wish ROLL to co= ntinue that work?

=A0<= /p>

Cheers,

=A0<= /p>

Pascal

=A0<= /p>

From: Ines Rob= les [mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com]
Sent: jeudi 23 janvier 2014 23:44
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Jonathan Hui (johui)
Cc: Michael Richardson; roll
Subject: Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags=

=A0

Hi Pascal and Jonathan,

=A0

Thank you very muc= h for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags-02,

=A0

Abstract:

=A0

In order to be rou= ted, a fragmented packet must be reassembled at
=A0=A0every hop of a multihop link where lower layer fragmentation occurs.<= br> =A0=A0Considering that the IPv6 minimum MTU is 1280 bytes and that an an =A0=A0802.15.4 frame can have a payload limited to 74 bytes in the worst =A0=A0case, a packet might end up fragmented into as many as 18 fragments =A0=A0at the 6LoWPAN shim layer. =A0If a single one of those fragments is =A0=A0lost in transmission, all fragments must be resent, further
=A0=A0contributing to the congestion that might have caused the initial
=A0=A0packet loss. =A0This draft introduces a simple protocol to forward an= d
=A0=A0recover individual fragments that might be lost over multiple hops =A0=A0between 6LoWPAN endpoints.

=A0

We would like to k= now please how you see that this draft is aligned with the roll charter,

it seems that the = intention is in this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/r= oll/current/msg07784.html, is that correct? do you have some additional information for intention?

=A0

Thank you in advan= ce,


Michael and Ines.


--047d7b5d645a28f1b104f1af114b-- From cabo@tzi.org Wed Feb 5 13:14:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460CC1A024E for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:14:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7hZ_r41Itlbg for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:14:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0254B1A024B for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:14:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s15LEFS5022646; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:14:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.101] (p54893DF9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.61.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C93C5EFC; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:14:14 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:14:12 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: Michael Richardson , Ines Robles , "Jonathan Hui \(johui\)" Subject: Re: [Roll] Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 05 Feb 2014 21:14:38 -0000 On 05 Feb 2014, at 19:05, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) = wrote: > We presented the work at 6lo, but there was a mitigated reception. > Carsten in particular opposed the work, and complained that it moved = places, Well, my complaint was not just about the fact that the same idea had = been discussed in several places, but mainly that it already had = received lukewarm to negative feedback in those places, but there had = been little progress in the draft apparent when it turned up in the next = place. > plus has doubts about the retry mechanism That is really the technical part of my and others=92 skepticism. Apart from the apparent redundancy with existing L2 ACK/retransmission = mechanisms, one aspect was the unclear interaction of a multi-hop = reliability scheme with transport timers. More generally, there was skepticism that this approach actually yields = improvements that are in line with the complexity it creates. Having some observations from simulations or preferably real networks = would be useful to dispel this impression. But I agree with Ines, sub-IP encapsulation and reliability/performance = is really outside ROLL=92s scope. 6lo would actually be the right WG, = but the technical question marks mentioned above would need to be = addressed. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Wed Feb 5 21:16:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896F91A0365; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 21:16:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wleasK2eKw8O; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 21:16:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x22d.google.com (mail-ve0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDEDE1A029D; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 21:16:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id oz11so1135080veb.32 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:16:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=LprLQ42RQDMYzH9y7UDEJxKQMqMk6dC+tO4mGFFPbLU=; b=SGdg3UZl3xVTHFwa4L6xFzTPQJEwtA0c3k1mizOoptyp4H6yoVZXmx3gnlIpSVd8IG sfahsL1zAmEgrbyRvbMI5/8CD+9jIEfK/RTGHw9QovFL1AagF0H1GgCzYAGfRkKi1/FB Z72fcRK7v51P9CZrinofjH8VPxX6x31dJfKIiA64k+TI0Nwhmt5AsyWA7fsse8KTmcTe DN3IoK8CaB0lcVSazlkOl2hnYGVBtseqpOXB35fsaX6EOB75bzs768xhnTnHNNCBwft+ AUY7t0SYA0zhJcYj6Qx3lSgfOXWR3cYpfL9sF6p6FUKqF08FlEW4qApZGJdxQoU0B0fd C2dg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.29.196 with SMTP id rz4mr4174198vcb.8.1391663807826; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 21:16:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 03:16:47 -0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133a1c0e98edc04f1b5fa12 Cc: tisch <6tisch@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] proposal to abandon draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 06 Feb 2014 05:16:52 -0000 --001a1133a1c0e98edc04f1b5fa12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 *Hi,Following the standard, 802.15.4e was created oriented to support a wide range of industrial applications, to provide a better service to the Industry. Thinking that the most of the Industries are going to follow this standard, I think it would be good that this applicability statement is adapted to the 6tisch environment or it is replaced for one equivalent.Thanks and Regards,Ines* 2014-02-05 Michael Richardson : > > Last summer during the chartering process of 6tisch, I asked if 6tisch > wanted > or or ought to adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability. We did > not reach a clear conclusion, and agreed to revisit the question later on. > > EXEC SUMMARY: > I want to propose that the ROLL WG abandon this document as not > particularly > useful to real industry. If this document normatively references > 6tisch, > it will in essence be obsoleted by the documents it references. If the > document does no normatively reference 6tisch, it may have no value. > > 6tisch will not adopt this document, as it has equivalent documents > already > planned. The value of this document may have been simply to make the > motiviation for creating 6tisch clear. > > > AUDIENCE: > First, I want to recognize that the group of people working on 6tisch are > people who think that they can not deploy into industrial settings > without > availability of deterministic behaviour. Thus I want to acknowledge that > asking 6tisch people if deterministic behaviour is useful is preaching to > the choir. > > Second, I would ask that those of you who are in other SDOs that deal > with > this kind of thing (IEC, IEEE, ZigbeeIP) where I, a non-member, can not > post, to please forward this email and/or a link to the thread. > > BACKGROUND: > The document deals with using RPL in Industrial settings, and does a very > good job of explaining how things operate in that space. > > The document includes a diagram in section 2.1.1, on page 7: > > > It appears from the above sections that whether and the way RPL can > > be applied for a given flow depends both on the deployment scenario > > and on the class of application / traffic. At a high level, this can > > be summarized by the following matrix: > > > > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > > | Phase \ Class | 0 1 2 3 4 5 > | > > > +=====================+================================================+ > > | Construction | X X X X > | > > > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > > | Planned startup | X X X X > | > > > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > > | Normal operation | ? ? ? > | > > > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > > | Planned shutdown | X X X X > | > > > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > > |Plant decommissioning| X X X X > | > > > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > > | Recovery and repair | X X X X X X > | > > > +---------------------+------------------------------------------------+ > > > > > > ? : typically usable for all but higher-rate classes 0,1 PS traffic > === > > An X denotes that a non-deterministric LLN using RPL could be used in > uring many phases of a plant, but it can not be used for class 0,1 > traffic > during "Normal Operation". That is, an RPL LLN is useful during > exceptional > times, but not during normal times. Whether normal operation can be > served > by a deterministric (6tisch) network, or whether it will require wired > operation is clearly going to be decided on a case-by-case basis. > > QUESTION: > The group of deployments for which "Normal Operation" can be satisfied > by a > 6tisch based solution, would in general be covered by 6tisch. In > particular whatever (security) bootstrap process used by 6tisch would be > used during the other phases, so any security analysis done in this > document is not useful. > > If the deployment can not be satisfied by 6tisch (e.g Normal Operation > requires wires, etc.), then this document may well have some value. > In that case, this document might have value, but we have not at present > identified the constituency that would be willing to work on this > document. > > Does such a consitutency exist? > If it does not, then I suggest that it is not worth the cost to the IETF > to publish this document. > > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --001a1133a1c0e98edc04f1b5fa12 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi= ,


Following= the standard, 802.15.4e was created oriented to support a wide range of in= dustrial applications, to provide a better service to the Industry. Thinkin= g that the most of the Industries are going to follow this standard, I thin= k it would be good that this applicability statement is adapted to the 6tis= ch environment or it is replaced for one equivalent.


Thanks an= d Regards,


Ines


2014-02-05 Michael Richardson <mcr= +ietf@sandelman.ca>:

Last summer during the chartering process of 6tisch, I asked if 6tisch want= ed
or or ought to adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability. =A0We di= d
not reach a clear conclusion, and agreed to revisit the question later on.<= br>
EXEC SUMMARY:
=A0 I want to propose that the ROLL WG abandon this document as not particu= larly
=A0 useful to real industry. =A0 If this document normatively references 6t= isch,
=A0 it will in essence be obsoleted by the documents it references. =A0If t= he
=A0 document does no normatively reference 6tisch, it may have no value.
=A0 6tisch will not adopt this document, as it has equivalent documents alr= eady
=A0 planned. =A0 The value of this document may have been simply to make th= e
=A0 motiviation for creating 6tisch clear.


AUDIENCE:
=A0 First, I want to recognize that the group of people working on 6tisch a= re
=A0 people who think that they can not deploy into industrial settings with= out
=A0 availability of deterministic behaviour. =A0Thus I want to acknowledge = that
=A0 asking 6tisch people if deterministic behaviour is useful is preaching = to
=A0 the choir.

=A0 Second, I would ask that those of you who are in other SDOs that deal w= ith
=A0 this kind of thing (IEC, IEEE, ZigbeeIP) where I, a non-member, can not=
=A0 post, to please forward this email and/or a link to the thread.

BACKGROUND:
=A0 The document deals with using RPL in Industrial settings, and does a ve= ry
=A0 good job of explaining how things operate in that space.

=A0 The document includes a diagram in section 2.1.1, on page 7:

=A0 > It appears from the above sections that whether and the way RPL ca= n
=A0 > be applied for a given flow depends both on the deployment scenari= o
=A0 > and on the class of application / traffic. =A0At a high level, thi= s can
=A0 > be summarized by the following matrix:

=A0 > +---------------------+-------------------------------------------= -----+
=A0 > | =A0 Phase \ =A0Class =A0 =A0| =A0 0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1 =A0 =A0 =A0 2 = =A0 =A0 =A0 3 =A0 =A0 =A0 4 =A0 =A0 =A0 5 =A0 =A0|
=A0 > +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+
=A0 > | =A0 Construction =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0|
=A0 > +---------------------+-------------------------------------------= -----+
=A0 > | =A0 Planned startup =A0 | =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 X = =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0|
=A0 > +---------------------+-------------------------------------------= -----+
=A0 > | =A0 Normal operation =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ? =A0 =A0 =A0 ? =A0 =A0 =A0 ? =A0 =A0|
=A0 > +---------------------+-------------------------------------------= -----+
=A0 > | =A0 Planned shutdown =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 X = =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0|
=A0 > +---------------------+-------------------------------------------= -----+
=A0 > |Plant decommissioning| =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 = =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0|
=A0 > +---------------------+-------------------------------------------= -----+
=A0 > | Recovery and repair | =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 = =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0 =A0 X =A0 =A0|
=A0 > +---------------------+-------------------------------------------= -----+
=A0 >
=A0 >
=A0 > =A0? : typically usable for all but higher-rate classes 0,1 PS tra= ffic
=A0 =3D=3D=3D

=A0 An X denotes that a non-deterministric LLN using RPL could be used in =A0 uring many phases of a plant, but it can not be used for class 0,1 traf= fic
=A0 during "Normal Operation". =A0 That is, an RPL LLN is useful = during exceptional
=A0 times, but not during normal times. =A0 Whether normal operation can be= served
=A0 by a deterministric (6tisch) network, or whether it will require wired<= br> =A0 operation is clearly going to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

QUESTION:
=A0 The group of deployments for which "Normal Operation" can be = satisfied by a
=A0 6tisch based solution, would in general be covered by 6tisch. =A0In
=A0 particular whatever (security) bootstrap process used by 6tisch would b= e
=A0 used during the other phases, so any security analysis done in this
=A0 document is not useful.

=A0 If the deployment can not be satisfied by 6tisch (e.g Normal Operation<= br> =A0 requires wires, etc.), then this document may well have some value.
=A0 In that case, this document might have value, but we have not at presen= t
=A0 identified the constituency that would be willing to work on this docum= ent.

=A0 Does such a consitutency exist?
=A0 If it does not, then I suggest that it is not worth the cost to the IET= F
=A0 to publish this document.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@= sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair. =A0 =A0http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/<= /a>


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


--001a1133a1c0e98edc04f1b5fa12-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Feb 6 08:43:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF071A0425 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:43:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.009 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6QCp04CCxVAN for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:43:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088481A03F1 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:43:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0457B20037; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:00:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 35432647C9; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:43:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2084F63B88; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:43:36 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" 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 Cc: roll , Ines Robles , "Jonathan Hui \(johui\)" Subject: Re: [Roll] Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 06 Feb 2014 16:43:44 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > We presented the work at 6lo, but there was a mitigated reception. > Carsten in particular opposed the work, and complained that it moved = places, > plus has doubts about the retry mechanism. > Would you wish ROLL to continue that work? We are not looking for new things, but rather trying to make sure that we haven't missed or ignored any relevant new work. Some times a draft is written just to explain an idea, and that it doesn't need to go anywhere. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 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) iQCVAwUBUvO7tYqHRg3pndX9AQIPwwP+KMugFYXkPLqAVK0S6hgsQs33iQCnQy8n k7zAI2BtVSaVbCObw+0YcFK+Sp5rrVgRzc4aMzHGWH5yQzjf2pmJiUr7BJtDXavy 6ekGjm9b+ozI/o8nzgk845WSOsmyfd9LY+s+E40as7suihIgKW+cMsQHOeLY1gNe ihvUu8a99ow= =CKCz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From pthubert@cisco.com Fri Feb 7 00:48:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04D81A05DA; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 00:48:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id caSIO4qpX4Rk; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 00:48:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6BD1A05CA; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 00:48:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2312; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391762912; x=1392972512; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BXAf2tELa1aHY6o881j8FbSpTAtBiYMayKGpyMGwnp8=; b=C12JuYKMihdP7zwy4II1Q+Y+uS0YQlUn6rMTuHK13S5mw0RRXn+RSUZ8 Ind8zQEajYiz4NuekkgTvhiMJ3ezItPzQYZa5uQjNtYLVrc7S+NqrfAfZ F3Nmmo4qR4J0SPinqnqcwu5niMLvb5j9QHcdJU1Ud6XQAuJ0cKqrSQIqZ 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAAud9FKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABZgww4V75/gQoWdIIlAQEBBHkMBAIBCBEEAQEBCh0HMhQJCAIEDgUIh30NzQ8XjkwxBwaDHoEUBIkRkEyQb4Mtgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,799,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="18682909" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2014 08:48:32 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s178mWsG019609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Feb 2014 08:48:32 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.57]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:48:32 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Michael Richardson Thread-Topic: Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags Thread-Index: AQHPGIybaTJ6ApR1/0qpQGZb5oitF5qnBu3wgAHhtwCAAKXioA== Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 08:48:31 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 08:48:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5466.1391705016@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <5466.1391705016@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.49.80.59] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: roll , Ines Robles , "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "Jonathan Hui \(johui\)" Subject: Re: [Roll] Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 07 Feb 2014 08:48:36 -0000 Hello Michael: There are really 2 pieces in the draft, the 'trick' to forward a fragment a= nd that can be implemented independently and transparently by every node, s= o there is no need for standardization and I could go ahead with an informa= tional personal submission to the RFC editor - better have an RFC number th= an a lost in space personal submission. And then there is the capability to retry and do flow control over fragment= on a multihop forwarding plane. Forwarding fragments has this side effect = that 1 hop ARQ in the middle of a multihop forwarding plane does not let th= e fragment source know that a fragment was abandoned somewhere on the way. = Incomplete packets are a bad idea in a constrained node. Whether it is a go= od idea to protect fragments end-to -end over the multihop LLN as opposed *= or* on top of every hop is debatable. Carsten opposes, and there were a num= ber of other knee-jerk reactions. But we need a people who understand forwa= rding and transport to make the decision. FYI, small frames are here to stay, even though 802.15.4g is heavily used i= n smartgrid applciations; classical 15.4 2006 is still the base of industri= al WSN protocols and, BTW, of 6TiSCH. Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: mcr@sandelman.ca [mailto:mcr@sandelman.ca] On Behalf Of Michael > Richardson > Sent: jeudi 6 f=E9vrier 2014 17:44 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ines Robles; Jonathan Hui (johui); roll > Subject: Re: Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags >=20 >=20 > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > We presented the work at 6lo, but there was a mitigated reception. >=20 > > Carsten in particular opposed the work, and complained that it move= d > places, > > plus has doubts about the retry mechanism. >=20 > > Would you wish ROLL to continue that work? >=20 > We are not looking for new things, but rather trying to make sure that we > haven't missed or ignored any relevant new work. Some times a draft is w= ritten > just to explain an idea, and that it doesn't need to go anywhere. >=20 > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ From stokcons@xs4all.nl Fri Feb 7 02:31:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA63C1A05F8 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:31:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.71 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i85Dm6UD0DAN for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:31:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017831A05F5 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:31:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube12.xs4all.net [194.109.20.211]) by smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s17AVCA2087434 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:31:13 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl) Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-96-62.w90-28.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.28.135.62]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:31:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:31:12 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: roll@ietf.org Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org Message-ID: X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (ekYvoZq1slkYCZiAjAu+a7tGLU6MA84X) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [Roll] RPL-MIB X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, 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, 07 Feb 2014 10:31:18 -0000 Dear authors, Is it possible to extend the RPL MIB with MPL parameters? Easy suggestions are per interface the parameters: DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN, DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX, DATA_MESSAGE_K,DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMIN, CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMAX, CONTROL_MESSAGE_K,CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS per interface: the enabled MC addresses. Measured values per seed and MC address: low seq nr, high seq nr the number of messages received, number of messages repeated, number of messages rejected because c>k. Looking forward to your reply, Peter -- Peter van der Stok mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Fri Feb 7 02:53:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8721A0604 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:53:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.785 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.785 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Waod4oorKsnj for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:52:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C081A00BC for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:52:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCC2201BE; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:52:54 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cFxsk7fVuYyK; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:52:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E87201B8; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:52:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 580F52B15793; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:52:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:52:53 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: <20140207105253.GB51975@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-MIB X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder , 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, 07 Feb 2014 10:53:04 -0000 On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0100, peter van der Stok wrote: > Dear authors, > > Is it possible to extend the RPL MIB with MPL parameters? > > Easy suggestions are per interface the parameters: > DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN, DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX, > DATA_MESSAGE_K,DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS > CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMIN, CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMAX, > CONTROL_MESSAGE_K,CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS > > per interface: the enabled MC addresses. > > Measured values per seed and MC address: low seq nr, high seq nr > the number of messages received, number of messages repeated, number > of messages rejected because c>k. > Sure. I have not closely followed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast. It is probably time to read it in detail. I do not think I get to look into this before the cutoff so one option might be to work this out in London. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From cabo@tzi.org Fri Feb 7 03:32:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229591A05FE; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 03:32:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UcOIIX2AAsjE; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 03:32:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221991A0033; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 03:32:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s17BWJWo014255; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:32:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.101] (p54892160.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.33.96]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F08DE94E; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:32:17 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:32:16 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8A3F3C1F-4C4F-4BE7-A33D-5C52BA1D0913@tzi.org> References: <5466.1391705016@sandelman.ca> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: Michael Richardson , "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, Ines Robles , "Jonathan Hui \(johui\)" Subject: Re: [Roll] Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 07 Feb 2014 11:32:29 -0000 > There are really 2 pieces in the draft, the 'trick' to forward a = fragment and that can be implemented independently and transparently by = every node, so there is no need for standardization and I could go ahead = with an informational personal submission to the RFC editor - better = have an RFC number than a lost in space personal submission. Yep. Good point. I think the first formal documentation of this technique is in the = 6LoWPAN book, section 2.5.2 (L3 routing (=93Route-Over=94), page 40/41). For the IETF, it is documented in draft-ietf-lwig-guidance, section = 3.1.1. Do you have anything that needs to be added to the guidance document = about this? (Or about any other implementation technique important for 6LoWPAN? Once lwig-terminology is done, I=92d like to start wrapping up the = guidance document.) > And then there is the capability to retry and do flow control over = fragment on a multihop forwarding plane. Forwarding fragments has this = side effect that 1 hop ARQ in the middle of a multihop forwarding plane = does not let the fragment source know that a fragment was abandoned = somewhere on the way. Incomplete packets are a bad idea in a constrained = node. Whether it is a good idea to protect fragments end-to -end over = the multihop LLN as opposed *or* on top of every hop is debatable. = Carsten opposes, and there were a number of other knee-jerk reactions. = But we need a people who understand forwarding and transport to make the = decision. Right now, what we have is a clash of intuitions. Many people are = thinking =93won=92t work=94, =93not needed=94, =93doesn=92t improve=94. = Others are thinking that the new mechanisms would help. As I said before, the only way to resolve this is getting data. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Feb 7 06:25:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153361A1F55 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:25:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.029 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F1RFayxMm7D0 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442091A1F4A for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF95F20028 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:42:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 72C02647C9; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:25:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576AD63B88 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:25:17 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Attribution: mcr 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: [Roll] draft agenda for IETF89 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 07 Feb 2014 14:25:21 -0000 --=-=-= here is the draft agenda. If your document is here, and yo uhave not yet sent us some slides, please send us something by Feb. 17, updates accepted until Feb. 28. (If we don't receive slides, you will be removed from the agenda) If your name is here and you can not present, please contact us. Ines & Michael Agenda: 1) note well - new version (2min, 00:00) 2) state of all drafts slide (5min, 02:00) a) draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building b) draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami c) draft-ietf-roll-security-threats d) draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast e) draft-ietf-terminology -> RFC 7102 3) state of all issues slide (3min, 08:00) 4) updates to milestones, schedule and practice. (5min, 11:00) 5) update on: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building (slides received) (10min, 21:00) 6) update on: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami (10min, 31:00) 7) draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability detail the resolution (3min, 34:00) 8) updates on: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template. (4min, 38:00) 9) mpl issue: draft-roux-roll-mpl-eval-00 (15min, 53:00) 10) mpl issue: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration (10min, 63:00) 11) new work: draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness (15min, 78:00) 12) Open floor. (12 minutes) -- 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) iQCVAwUBUvTsy4qHRg3pndX9AQLiEgP/amQVLmkJRKWTzEctEYHQN9arSB0meJ9/ J2/sl9k1yfyo8DjcoLvzaucwzQPN3bUKKfDnDQu77zcwBLyozYMkv/n0FvUp4xdA Pg6rPZ9V0LSOJeHNazjDq117StsZHLPKdm1ZpkILuFGSfR6lqnYNBBWH6IuPR1IL FF+tn5Ig96o= =fm+1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Feb 7 07:26:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A021A8033; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:26:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.009 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KpkKle2aAzL0; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:26:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15F51A8032; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:26:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5BC20028; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:43:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 48D8C647C9; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:26:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5EC63B88; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:26:05 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <8A3F3C1F-4C4F-4BE7-A33D-5C52BA1D0913@tzi.org> References: <5466.1391705016@sandelman.ca> <8A3F3C1F-4C4F-4BE7-A33D-5C52BA1D0913@tzi.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: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Ines Robles , "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "Jonathan Hui \(johui\)" Subject: Re: [Roll] Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 07 Feb 2014 15:26:08 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Carsten Bormann wrote: >> And then there is the capability to retry and do flow control over >fragment on a multihop forwarding plane. Forwarding fragments has this >side effect that 1 hop ARQ in the middle of a multihop forwarding plane >does not let the fragment source know that a fragment was abandoned >somewhere on the way. Incomplete packets are a bad idea in a constrain= ed >node. Whether it is a good idea to protect fragments end-to -end over >the multihop LLN as opposed *or* on top of every hop is >debatable. Carsten opposes, and there were a number of other knee-jerk >reactions. But we need a people who understand forwarding and transport >to make the decision. > Right now, what we have is a clash of intuitions. Many people are > thinking =E2=80=9Cwon=E2=80=99t work=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cnot needed=E2= =80=9D, =E2=80=9Cdoesn=E2=80=99t improve=E2=80=9D. Others are > thinking that the new mechanisms would help. > As I said before, the only way to resolve this is getting data. Sounds like experimental track to me. =2D- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUvT7CoqHRg3pndX9AQJ9igQAt433zmKecfw8ckd7r7Ymrc/x1He+q5qT 1v15km0x9qQO07BSOU5eRLJ3/iZAd1XAzqU0dZ/dNymCaANnLQXY/5Rz0kGdhhHY rH2VlCnIaif0CRYWfziQt8dtu/6kSPt9cygl0N4675VawLzjBewyDLFpZ1a2eyxc +mTqt+0KzRs= =384J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From Richard.Kelsey@silabs.com Fri Feb 7 10:59:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926C01ACCE3; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:59:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id boH4QP-aDSNS; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:59:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from na3sys009aog106.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog106.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467611A00FE; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxsause01.silabs.com ([66.193.122.70]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob106.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUvUtAJMPAmnPuwP86duyb4G89//ZwTSK@postini.com; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:59:21 PST Received: from EXCAUS010.silabs.com (unknown [10.100.0.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxsause01.silabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE7EFF121; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:59:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from kelsey-ws (10.4.148.34) by EXCAUS010.silabs.com (10.100.0.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:59:11 -0600 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:05:45 -0500 Message-ID: <874n4aeoae.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com> From: Richard Kelsey To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: <8A3F3C1F-4C4F-4BE7-A33D-5C52BA1D0913@tzi.org> (message from Carsten Bormann on Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:32:16 +0100) X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, OOF, AutoReply References: <5466.1391705016@sandelman.ca> <8A3F3C1F-4C4F-4BE7-A33D-5C52BA1D0913@tzi.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.4.148.34] Cc: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, roll@ietf.org, mariainesrobles@googlemail.com, 6tisch@ietf.org, johui@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Roll] Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 07 Feb 2014 18:59:22 -0000 > From: Carsten Bormann > Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:32:16 +0100 > > > And then there is the capability to retry and do flow control over > fragment on a multihop forwarding plane. Forwarding fragments has > this side effect that 1 hop ARQ in the middle of a multihop > forwarding plane does not let the fragment source know that a > fragment was abandoned somewhere on the way. Incomplete packets are > a bad idea in a constrained node. Whether it is a good idea to > protect fragments end-to -end over the multihop LLN as opposed *or* > on top of every hop is debatable. Carsten opposes, and there were a > number of other knee-jerk reactions. But we need a people who > understand forwarding and transport to make the decision. > > Right now, what we have is a clash of intuitions. Many people are > thinking “won’t work”, “not needed”, “doesn’t improve”. Others are > thinking that the new mechanisms would help. As I said before, the > only way to resolve this is getting data. My experience with 802.15.4 has been that end-to-end acknowledgements are necessary to get good reliability in a multihop network. We have tried to get along without them, but in the end we always go back. Packets go astray in some way or other that requires a positive action to fix, so you have to know when something has gone wrong in order to kick off a fix. The best and simplest solution is to have end-to-end acks within the mesh, operating below the transport layer (the transport layer has its own problems to worry about, and one or both endpoints may be outside the mesh anyway). So I would say that something is needed, but I am not sure that the on-hop acks in draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags are the solution. There may be a way to extend the runt buffer trick to get an ack all the way back; it couldn't be done transparently though. You could stick a mesh header on the front and use MPLS-like forwarding to make it look like one hop to the fragmentation code. Or something. -Richard Kelsey This email and any attachments may be confidential. If so, do not disseminate without the sender’s authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Email transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be error-free or virus-free and we accept no liability. Silicon Labs does not intend or authorize emails to act as legally binding contracts. From cabo@tzi.org Fri Feb 7 15:08:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A24F1AD73E; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:08:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JF3_k9F2H1dD; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:08:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0B21A0444; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:08:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s17N8fN3014186; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54893711.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.55.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8EE04CF1; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:40 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:08:38 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0E66B5C7-0323-48D6-86A1-950CA260B475@tzi.org> References: To: dtls-iot@ietf.org, core , ace@ietf.org, "6lo@ietf.org WG" <6lo@ietf.org>, roll WG , lwip@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Subject: [Roll] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF89, "final" version X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 07 Feb 2014 23:08:46 -0000 On 01 Feb 2014, at 10:34, Carsten Bormann wrote: > A first draft version of the IETF88 agenda is out. > ** THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE ** for conflict resolution,=20 > so please don't make travel arrangements based on it. >=20 > Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda built from that. =20 > All times are UTC (UTC-0000). > The Constrained Node/Network group meetings are nicely spread out over = the week. Here is an update with the =93final=94 agenda (caveat viator). Nothing of substance has changed, a couple of room assignments (and a = longer break on Tuesday). Just making sure you don=92t turn up in the wrong room... Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten MONDAY, March 3, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Buckingham APP appsawg Applications Area Working Group WG - = Combined with APPAREA 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Blenheim APP httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG Sovereign INT dnssd Extensions for Scalable DNS Service = Discovery WG 1520-1620 Afternoon Session II Viscount OPS eman Energy Management WG Sovereign SEC *** dice DTLS In Constrained Environments WG Palace C SEC httpauth Hypertext Transfer Protocol = Authentication WG 1630-1730 Afternoon Session III Palace C SEC httpauth Hypertext Transfer Protocol = Authentication WG TUESDAY, March 4, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Park Suite APP *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Sovereign INT homenet Home Networking WG Palace C SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG 1300-1400 Afternoon Session I Viscount INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG 1610-1840 Afternoon Session III Viscount INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Balmoral SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG Sovereign TSV rmcat RTP Media Congestion Avoidance = Techniques WG WEDNESDAY, March 5, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Balmoral APP *** ace Authentication and Authorization for = Constrained Environments BOF Sovereign OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Blenheim APP httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG Viscount TSV taps Transport Services BOF 1520-1620 Afternoon Session II Balmoral INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG Buckingham RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting Viscount TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1630-1730 Afternoon Session III Balmoral INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG Buckingham RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting THURSDAY, March 6, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Viscount TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Buckingham INT *** 6tisch IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE = 802.15.4e WG Sovereign OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Viscount SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting 1520-1650 Afternoon Session II Viscount RTG *** roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks WG 1700-1830 Afternoon Session III Balmoral INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG Blenheim SEC jose Javascript Object Signing and Encryption = WG FRIDAY, March 7, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Richm_Chl_Tow APP uta Using TLS in Applications WG Buckingham TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1150-1320 Afternoon Session 1 Viscount APP *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Balmoral APP json JavaScript Object Notation WG From axel-ietf@axelcdv.com Fri Feb 7 16:27:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260951A0522 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:27:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nawf7mTCBgIV for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:27:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D72D1A051A for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:27:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB311C02E2; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:27:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.1.47] (cha75-1-78-192-0-189.fbxo.proxad.net [78.192.0.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41A881C0748; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:27:14 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Axel_Colin_de_Verdi=E8re?= In-Reply-To: <0d753074c679b2f79f1ba4acb18cd7f3@xs4all.nl> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 01:26:50 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <001AF5D9-5760-42D5-8BA9-4F421B39ACDA@axelcdv.com> References: <20140124201637.988.3372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4C62FB50-C8E8-4CEA-BD42-B64076883379@gmail.com> <0d753074c679b2f79f1ba4acb18cd7f3@xs4all.nl> To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 08 Feb 2014 00:27:30 -0000 Hello, I've reviewed the draft, and I have a couple comments/questions if = that's not too late: - I don't see why MPL forwarders on the same link should have the same = value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. It is now RECOMMENDED to make it so, but = I don't see the rationale for this recommendation: on the opposite, I = think it would allow some forwarders with less power restrictions to be = more proactive than others. - Isn't there a risk that only specifying SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME = without any kind of hysteresis mechanism lead to old Data messages being = reinjected in the network? For example, if an MPL forwarder A resets its = Control Message trickle timer with a seed (S) close to expiration, there = is a risk that a neighbor forwarder that has expired that seed = interprets the Control Message as A having new Data messages from seed = S, thus resetting its timer for this seed and potentially retransmitting = the corresponding Data message(s). - In section 9.2, it is unclear when the M flag should be cleared or = set: why would it be arbitrarily cleared and not indicate whether or not = this message's sequence number is the largest one received? Thank you, Axel Le 3 f=E9vr. 2014 =E0 11:23, peter van der Stok a = =E9crit : > I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues > raised during the WG last call concerning our applications, have been = addressed adequately. >=20 > peter van der stok >=20 > Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-01-27 16:58: >> I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues I >> raised during the WG last call have been addressed and, in my = opinion, >> the document is now ready for publication. >> - Ralph >> On Jan 24, 2014, at 3:16 PM 1/24/14, The IESG = wrote: >>> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and = Lossy >>> networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: >>> - 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)' >>> as Proposed Standard >>> This is a second last call, the first one having been abandoned to = send >>> the document back to the working group. But the latest revision = addresses >>> comments that were received during the first last call. >>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and = solicits >>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to = the >>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments = may be >>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>> 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 file can be obtained via >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ >>> IESG discussion can be tracked via >>> = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ballot/ >>> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Sat Feb 8 11:59:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A1D1A00FE for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:59:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vPN3pKYFecbA for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-x233.google.com (mail-vb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E721A013C for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id 11so3646259vbe.38 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:59:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0CXIAsHTWQxkj2DZw2dLy8bgVmNG5CCpRhRISKbFnfc=; b=IGX6xoZLonA1hSf7tMGUocf8oE9Kafc4Q+ZGfo99j3AeHU93drWfnw+/yLaZflYP76 9QW4nO/PSoFYHarUQugg/juRBHdLUs5q4N30C+tlIgKRsYSWpx2eSX/iVfPQU2VlpEyw UxIp7PZgGn9gc4zb6nHzfkgsdq5VztLrpM+7eODf1GMeplFeBv4AHSyBUUST8s4yDVMx EOPnnWEMCjx1yeBa6xT5cNpo1BvR3+uqw4Egtcc+pn4ysxVnf0edzDI52SndqHz5if1P 14uZEh3PrfO71qhWIB+ayD5v2dchUtBberqavqTZqPuvm+ac7XbtGqTG95aGSB5tL0FG pgFg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.133.80 with SMTP id e16mr16261260vct.13.1391889559271; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:59:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 17:59:19 -0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11362cd4bf3bab04f1ea8a8f Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] I-D submission cut-off - IETF 89 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 08 Feb 2014 19:59:20 -0000 --001a11362cd4bf3bab04f1ea8a8f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, This is a kindly reminder, *2014-02-14 (Friday):* Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59, upload using IETF ID Submission Tool . Thanks and Regards, Michael & Ines. --001a11362cd4bf3bab04f1ea8a8f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi,

This is a kindly reminder,

2014-02-14 (Friday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59, upload using IETF ID Submission Tool.

Thanks and Regards,

Michael & Ines.
--001a11362cd4bf3bab04f1ea8a8f-- From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Sun Feb 9 05:33:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD7A1A06D6 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:33:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eijUyeXvdVsN for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:33:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x233.google.com (mail-qa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF661A02E1 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f11so8165434qae.10 for ; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 05:33:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NMlN8vzhjotc0Sq+WhQoUfoAX8mbHhCcdEUt59If0xw=; b=mMX3IwuEg1wkKCcQUxz04OJu0OZlAp2E1gMSNGDKO4OKrEEbWoae46uWdUpQTgFsXm pkmlUscdpGfMbVeSkVIQLNO2gUrV9sxVUx2vRZviX7EaPmIbBkeVqp2PUTRhUy93mxCM +TfEQfKNF8pepcBdGccYVN0gDMJjDbeUVELsvl678mUGcdeIMC0DPTfYZIUgSmq1xEa7 QvMDNjwRJucQHqo0X07wReiS+i2PexmIzzgCyRo1xrp18xfINShlIFTzDWIkmpAgW8h8 lCsErAx8zr9+XxCt39yFIFvF9MlLlEXPzbkeUVRz/AgN3ANtJSvKfT679hqXSUm3osol CRmQ== X-Received: by 10.224.43.144 with SMTP id w16mr39255337qae.93.1391952802967; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 05:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4830:16b1:1:2d0d:eb20:392f:b374? ([2001:4830:16b1:1:2d0d:eb20:392f:b374]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h12sm19075228qge.0.2014.02.09.05.33.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Feb 2014 05:33:21 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 08:33:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-MIB X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 09 Feb 2014 13:33:25 -0000 On Feb 7, 2014, at 5:31 AM 2/7/14, peter van der Stok = wrote: > Dear authors, >=20 > Is it possible to extend the RPL MIB with MPL parameters? Why would MPL parameters be added to the RPL MIB? MPL and RPL share = very little, if any, protocol or operational considerations. - Ralph >=20 > Easy suggestions are per interface the parameters: > DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN, DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX, = DATA_MESSAGE_K,DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS > CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMIN, CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMAX, = CONTROL_MESSAGE_K,CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS >=20 > per interface: the enabled MC addresses. >=20 > Measured values per seed and MC address: low seq nr, high seq nr > the number of messages received, number of messages repeated, number = of messages rejected because c>k. >=20 > Looking forward to your reply, >=20 > Peter >=20 > --=20 > Peter van der Stok > mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sun Feb 9 12:40:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747541A0591 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:40:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.346 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lb991932QBTp for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:40:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C3A1A054C for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:40:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s19Ke7sO031050; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:40:07 GMT Received: from 950129200 (14.21.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.21.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s19Ke5Im031032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:40:07 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks'" , References: <20140124201637.988.3372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4C62FB50-C8E8-4CEA-BD42-B64076883379@gmail.com> <0d753074c679b2f79f1ba4acb18cd7f3@xs4all.nl> <001AF5D9-5760-42D5-8BA9-4F421B39ACDA@axelcdv.com> In-Reply-To: <001AF5D9-5760-42D5-8BA9-4F421B39ACDA@axelcdv.com> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:40:05 -0000 Message-ID: <016001cf25d7$1e1913b0$5a4b3b10$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQF7At76MXK2TEpqpjfHuH4efSXahAFeCOAMAoNnEfMBrOKsAJspNXcg Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: No Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:40:11 -0000 Hi Axel, Some slight rolling of eyes as this I-D has been through plenty of = reviews and last calls, but in the end we appreciate all review comments however and whenever. Hoping the authors will generate an answer for you soon. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Axel Colin de = Verdi=E8re > Sent: 08 February 2014 00:27 > To: consultancy@vanderstok.org; Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks > Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast > Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard >=20 > Hello, >=20 > I've reviewed the draft, and I have a couple comments/questions if = that's not too > late: >=20 > - I don't see why MPL forwarders on the same link should have the same = value > for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. It is now RECOMMENDED to make it so, but I > don't see the rationale for this recommendation: on the opposite, I = think it would > allow some forwarders with less power restrictions to be more = proactive than > others. >=20 > - Isn't there a risk that only specifying SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME = without any > kind of hysteresis mechanism lead to old Data messages being = reinjected in the > network? For example, if an MPL forwarder A resets its Control Message = trickle > timer with a seed (S) close to expiration, there is a risk that a = neighbor forwarder > that has expired that seed interprets the Control Message as A having = new Data > messages from seed S, thus resetting its timer for this seed and = potentially > retransmitting the corresponding Data message(s). >=20 > - In section 9.2, it is unclear when the M flag should be cleared or = set: why would > it be arbitrarily cleared and not indicate whether or not this = message's sequence > number is the largest one received? >=20 > Thank you, >=20 > Axel >=20 > Le 3 f=E9vr. 2014 =E0 11:23, peter van der Stok a = =E9crit : >=20 > > I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues > > raised during the WG last call concerning our applications, have = been addressed > adequately. > > > > peter van der stok > > > > Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-01-27 16:58: > >> I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues I > >> raised during the WG last call have been addressed and, in my = opinion, > >> the document is now ready for publication. > >> - Ralph > >> On Jan 24, 2014, at 3:16 PM 1/24/14, The IESG = > wrote: > >>> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power = and Lossy > >>> networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: > >>> - 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)' > >>> as Proposed Standard > >>> This is a second last call, the first one having been abandoned to = send > >>> the document back to the working group. But the latest revision = addresses > >>> comments that were received during the first last call. > >>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and = solicits > >>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to = the > >>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments = may be > >>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > >>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > >>> 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 file can be obtained via > >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ > >>> IESG discussion can be tracked via > >>> = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ballot/ > >>> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: > >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From stokcons@xs4all.nl Mon Feb 10 00:19:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76A81A0690 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:19:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pd2XisXKSURq for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:19:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C7B1A009A for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:19:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube3.xs4all.net [194.109.20.199]) by smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s1A8JJ5x019850; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:19:19 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl) Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-241-199.w92-133.abo.wanadoo.fr ([92.133.12.199]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:19:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:19:19 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: Ralph Droms Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <92131c112cc511e6fdac094b533e27fe@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (I8zV/2YJoIWbHpJj44DucsVSVU5t61Hg) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-MIB X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, 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, 10 Feb 2014 08:19:24 -0000 The expectation is that MPL is used where RPL is used as well. Otherwise a second document is suggested. Peter Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-02-09 14:33: > On Feb 7, 2014, at 5:31 AM 2/7/14, peter van der Stok > wrote: > >> Dear authors, >> >> Is it possible to extend the RPL MIB with MPL parameters? > > Why would MPL parameters be added to the RPL MIB? MPL and RPL share > very little, if any, protocol or operational considerations. > > - Ralph > >> >> Easy suggestions are per interface the parameters: >> DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN, DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX, >> DATA_MESSAGE_K,DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS >> CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMIN, CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMAX, >> CONTROL_MESSAGE_K,CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS >> >> per interface: the enabled MC addresses. >> >> Measured values per seed and MC address: low seq nr, high seq nr >> the number of messages received, number of messages repeated, number >> of messages rejected because c>k. >> >> Looking forward to your reply, >> >> Peter >> >> -- >> Peter van der Stok >> mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Roll mailing list >> Roll@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From johui@cisco.com Mon Feb 10 06:19:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192EC1A0867 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:19:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ymkUWoY_w_Z5 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:19:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E021A085F for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:05:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4827; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392041114; x=1393250714; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Qggj3ybozdNysUh5dVT13g5m3/Eav4kFQNSMwAdb1qM=; b=OxVvGmntyxTu212y6hTGQk7KSzVbiaqs9XbY/1uCJPVGS6yzcar1MQEK 5BIm5slAvFUF3DzrNlfFXqmsWSeUna3+MBgqjtszLRN5vShqahPuZ2zLO XY9NvlypvjB14VHaeqlVo2oPqYXmXzA7/+WoFbmtR0f1lqew4Dzx6W/Wr U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAK7b+FKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABZgww4V789gRAWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQFrCwULAgEIGCMLJwslAgQOBYd9CA3JLReOLxszB4MkgRQEmCuBMpBvgW+BPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,818,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="302816996" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2014 14:03:01 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1AE307g025650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:03:00 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.213]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:03:00 -0600 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard Thread-Index: AQHPJmjOFFqfijPEKUOb4BjvwX4q/w== Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:03:00 +0000 Message-ID: <47541D76-F545-4088-A7D9-4D4E15061224@cisco.com> References: <20140124201637.988.3372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4C62FB50-C8E8-4CEA-BD42-B64076883379@gmail.com> <0d753074c679b2f79f1ba4acb18cd7f3@xs4all.nl> <001AF5D9-5760-42D5-8BA9-4F421B39ACDA@axelcdv.com> In-Reply-To: <001AF5D9-5760-42D5-8BA9-4F421B39ACDA@axelcdv.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.68.34] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <04E40D87EEC4F7488BFC3A0468046466@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 10 Feb 2014 14:19:49 -0000 Hi Axel, Thanks for your review and comments. See my comments below: On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Axel Colin de Verdi=E8re wrote: > I've reviewed the draft, and I have a couple comments/questions if that's= not too late: >=20 > - I don't see why MPL forwarders on the same link should have the same va= lue for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. It is now RECOMMENDED to make it so, but I do= n't see the rationale for this recommendation: on the opposite, I think it = would allow some forwarders with less power restrictions to be more proacti= ve than others. Good point. If there are no objections, I can remove this RECOMMENDED stat= ement. > - Isn't there a risk that only specifying SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME without= any kind of hysteresis mechanism lead to old Data messages being reinjecte= d in the network? For example, if an MPL forwarder A resets its Control Mes= sage trickle timer with a seed (S) close to expiration, there is a risk tha= t a neighbor forwarder that has expired that seed interprets the Control Me= ssage as A having new Data messages from seed S, thus resetting its timer f= or this seed and potentially retransmitting the corresponding Data message(= s). The hysteresis is controlled using the DATA/CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIO= NS parameters. The SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME should be much longer than thes= e to help ensure that devices maintain state until the propagation has comp= leted. > - In section 9.2, it is unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set:= why would it be arbitrarily cleared and not indicate whether or not this m= essage's sequence number is the largest one received? The M flag helps indicate whether a receiving node should reset its Trickle= timer. If the M flag is not set and the sequence number is lower than wha= t is already known, there is no need to reset the Trickle timer. =97 Jonathan Hui > Thank you, >=20 > Axel >=20 > Le 3 f=E9vr. 2014 =E0 11:23, peter van der Stok a = =E9crit : >=20 >> I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues >> raised during the WG last call concerning our applications, have been ad= dressed adequately. >>=20 >> peter van der stok >>=20 >> Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-01-27 16:58: >>> I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues I >>> raised during the WG last call have been addressed and, in my opinion, >>> the document is now ready for publication. >>> - Ralph >>> On Jan 24, 2014, at 3:16 PM 1/24/14, The IESG = wrote: >>>> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lo= ssy >>>> networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: >>>> - 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)' >>>> as Proposed Standard >>>> This is a second last call, the first one having been abandoned to sen= d >>>> the document back to the working group. But the latest revision addres= ses >>>> comments that were received during the first last call. >>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >>>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments may= be >>>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>>> 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 file can be obtained via >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ >>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ballot/ >>>> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Feb 10 06:32:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9271A0842 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:32:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dRl5DHc0-vte for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:32:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4775B1A02FA for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:32:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34270 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCrVX-00089N-L1; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:06:47 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:06:47 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/147 Message-ID: <067.b6d891fd0f9fd5f4ea28762de50609f7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 147 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #147: Unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:32:41 -0000 #147: Unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set Thread: ​​http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08473.html From: Axel Colin de Verdière Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 01:26:50 +0100 - In section 9.2, it is unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set: why would it be arbitrarily cleared and not indicate whether or not this message's sequence number is the largest one received? -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Feb 10 06:32:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3EBB1A0842 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:32:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yOK2ODhz_tjw for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:32:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03EF31A0865 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:32:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34220 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCrUD-0000Hz-8a; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:05:25 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:05:25 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/146 Message-ID: <067.1a9d14e0b4f089dfc394de0f9b107777@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 146 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #146: EED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME without any kind of hysteresis mechanism X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:32:50 -0000 #146: EED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME without any kind of hysteresis mechanism Thread: ​http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08473.html From: Axel Colin de Verdière Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 01:26:50 +0100 - Isn't there a risk that only specifying SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME without any kind of hysteresis mechanism lead to old Data messages being reinjected in the network? For example, if an MPL forwarder A resets its Control Message trickle timer with a seed (S) close to expiration, there is a risk that a neighbor forwarder that has expired that seed interprets the Control Message as A having new Data messages from seed S, thus resetting its timer for this seed and potentially retransmitting the corresponding Data message(s). -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Feb 10 06:32:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E121A0865 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:32:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wpw_5u-Gdfde for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:32:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B21F1A0868 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:32:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34170 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCrSk-0008Ao-Ki; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:03:54 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:03:54 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/145 Message-ID: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 145 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:32:50 -0000 #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08473.html From: Axel Colin de Verdière Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 01:26:50 +0100 - I don't see why MPL forwarders on the same link should have the same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. It is now RECOMMENDED to make it so, but I don't see the rationale for this recommendation: on the opposite, I think it would allow some forwarders with less power restrictions to be more proactive than others. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Feb 10 06:38:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38EF1A02E2 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:38:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nRxKIycWLsar for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:38:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A41E1A02A8 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:38:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35849 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCrzg-0001WX-SI; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:37:57 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:37:56 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/145#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.0869de53bb6cacfa74b807c2da971958@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 145 In-Reply-To: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:38:02 -0000 #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08478.html From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:03:00 +0000 Good point. If there are no objections, I can remove this RECOMMENDED statement. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org 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 Mon Feb 10 06:39:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2481A0307 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:39:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6kpxzEE_NZag for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:39:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E89D1A02E2 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:39:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35869 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCs0p-0004vY-K2; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:39:07 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:39:07 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/146#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.009f4101850e8dd68b6e3c53db9676d5@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.1a9d14e0b4f089dfc394de0f9b107777@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 146 In-Reply-To: <067.1a9d14e0b4f089dfc394de0f9b107777@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #146: EED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME without any kind of hysteresis mechanism X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:39:14 -0000 #146: EED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME without any kind of hysteresis mechanism Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08478.html From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:03:00 +0000 The hysteresis is controlled using the DATA/CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS parameters. The SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME should be much longer than these to help ensure that devices maintain state until the propagation has completed. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org 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 Mon Feb 10 06:39:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA69D1A0307 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:39:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nMMuzqbyIcGu for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:39:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491811A0844 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:39:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35879 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCs1X-0000YM-PD; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:39:51 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:39:51 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/147#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.384633482f584f2d1dd4f6297e7eff0f@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.b6d891fd0f9fd5f4ea28762de50609f7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 147 In-Reply-To: <067.b6d891fd0f9fd5f4ea28762de50609f7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #147: Unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:39:58 -0000 #147: Unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08478.html From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:03:00 +0000 The M flag helps indicate whether a receiving node should reset its Trickle timer. If the M flag is not set and the sequence number is lower than what is already known, there is no need to reset the Trickle timer. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Mon Feb 10 11:44:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A8E1A0863; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:44:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.027 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sYZTFIipEj6a; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:44:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oa0-x236.google.com (mail-oa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812F21A03C9; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:44:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id i4so8029826oah.41 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:44:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=+l5MMlxfcTnmu3jCJZZG/V2FsAccXTcdA9SQDuYOavw=; b=pDF34w7glcnLIyc5nk8oDkOITWTeJumk9qLjBF6TFK21dUhKMaFsVbjZzA01OnrXAf PzcsRkX4rFTnXxUVYQUvsmXACfiHJZExOzCPLIU3TzHoLblyNarekpgfdStwDx1xW5pw SbSTUteZc2D9Pu50EsxkzgllMdmB40lo8a4J1p3XvLOddopqsk5uPAjP0/7fzXNrUTAi kq1qrwD3Y3EB/ZX7UA/T1doLI62r2IzWbh+m/dam5oxrX6I55uKEch1JRCRZbfWg0OeA r7e5ZGV1Mua74sz4m/u/milZiaxG4qG3cuiMm8llKRFT0B0GQLu4Uojp3bE1EjqaZYc9 cyQg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.148.106 with SMTP id tr10mr2167834obb.65.1392061476095; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:44:36 -0800 (PST) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.83.10 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:44:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140124201637.988.3372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20140124201637.988.3372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:44:36 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: KeKhyEm9k2Y5uMX3zv8_-hpAx9I Message-ID: From: Kerry Lynn To: ietf@ietf.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Jonathan Hui Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012940d8c9d00804f2129155 Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 10 Feb 2014 19:44:39 -0000 --089e012940d8c9d00804f2129155 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Jonathan, I apologize for the fact that these comments/questions are late but offer them anyway... 3. Applicability Statement OLD: Operationally, the scope of this protocol is administratively determined. In other words, the scope of dissemination is determined by routers configured to disallow transmission or reception of MPL messages on a subset of interfaces. This language predates the alignment with I-D.ietf-6man-multicast-scopes and I suspect it is no longer generally true. I recommend deleting it. 4.1. MPL Domains OLD: When MPL is used in deployments that use administratively defined scopes that cover, for example, multiple subnets based on different underlying network technologies, Admin-Local scope (scop value 4) and /or Site-Local scope (scop value 5) SHOULD be used. I'm not clear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are in use, a node should participate in the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS multicast address for each multicast scope in use or just the highest scope in use. 5.4 MPL Forwarder Parameters OLD: PROACTIVE_FORWARDING A boolean value that indicates whether the MPL Forwarder schedules MPL Data Message transmissions after receiving them for the first time. It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Interfaces attached to the same link of a given MPL Domain use the same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING and has a default value of TRUE. The mechanism for setting PROACTIVE_FORWARDING is not specified within this document. SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME The minimum lifetime for an entry in the Seed Set. SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME has a default value of 30 minutes. It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarders use the same value for SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME for a given MPL Domain and has a default value of 30 minutes. The mechanism for setting SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME is not specified within this document. NEW: ... PROACTIVE_FORWARDING has a default value of TRUE. ... It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarders use the same value for SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME for a given MPL Domain and *use* a default value of 30 minutes. I think you were already planning to delete the RECOMMEND that all MPL Interfaces on the same link use the same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. The second suggestion is just grammatical. Regards, -K- On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:16 PM, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy > networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: > - 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)' > as Proposed Standard > > This is a second last call, the first one having been abandoned to send > the document back to the working group. But the latest revision addresses > comments that were received during the first last call. > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > 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 file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ballot/ > > > The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > --089e012940d8c9d00804f2129155 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Jonat= han,

I apologize for the fact that these comments/questio= ns are late but offer them anyway...


3. Applicability Stat= ement

OLD:
   Operationally, the scope of this proto=
col is administratively
   determined.  In other words, the scope of dissemination is determined
   by routers configured to disallow transmission or reception of MPL
   messages on a subset of interfaces.
This language predates the alignment with I-D.ietf-6man-multicast-sco= pes and I suspect
it is no longer generally true.=A0 I recommend deletin= g it.


4.1.=A0 MPL Domains

OLD: 
   When MPL is used in deployments that use administratively defined
   scopes that cover, for example, multiple subnets based on different
   underlying network technologies, Admin-Local scope (scop value 4) and
   /or Site-Local scope (scop value 5) SHOULD be used.
=A0
I&= #39;m not clear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are= in use, a node
should participate in the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS multicast a= ddress for each multicast
scope in use or just the highest scope in use.


5.4= =A0 MPL Forwarder Parameters

OLD:
   PROACTIVE_FORWARD=
ING  A boolean value that indicates whether the MPL
      Forwarder schedules MPL Data Message transmissions after receiving
      them for the first time.  It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL
      Interfaces attached to the same link of a given MPL Domain use the
      same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING and has a default value of
      TRUE.  The mechanism for setting PROACTIVE_FORWARDING is not
      specified within this document.

   SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME  The minimum lifetime for an entry in the
      Seed Set.  SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME has a default value of 30
      minutes.  It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarders use the same
      value for SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME for a given MPL Domain and has a
      default value of 30 minutes.  The mechanism for setting
      SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME is not specified within this document.

NEW:
      ...
      PROACTIVE_FORWARDING ha=
s a default value of TRUE.
      ...
      It is RECOMMENDED t=
hat all MPL Forwarders use the same
      value for SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME for a given MPL Domain and use a
      default value of 30 minutes.
I think you were already planning t= o delete the RECOMMEND that all MPL Interfaces
on the same link use the = same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING.=A0 The second
suggestion is just gr= ammatical.

Regards, -K-




On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:16 PM= , The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Rou= ting Over Low power and Lossy
networks WG (roll) to consider the following document:
- 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)'
=A0 <draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt> as Proposed Standard

This is a second last call, the first one having been abandoned to send
the document back to the working group. But the latest revision addresses comments that were received during the first last call.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02= -07. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In eith= er case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

=A0 =A0This document specifies the Multicast Protocol for Low power and
=A0 =A0Lossy Networks (MPL) that provides IPv6 multicast forwarding in
=A0 =A0constrained networks. =A0MPL avoids the need to construct or maintai= n
=A0 =A0any multicast forwarding topology, disseminating messages to all MPL=
=A0 =A0Forwarders in an MPL Domain. =A0MPL uses the Trickle algorithm to =A0 =A0manage message transmissions for both control and data-plane
=A0 =A0messages. =A0Different Trickle parameter configurations allow MPL to=
=A0 =A0trade between dissemination latency and transmission efficiency.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-m= cast/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-tr= ickle-mcast/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

=A0 =A0= http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/



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

--089e012940d8c9d00804f2129155-- From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Tue Feb 11 05:00:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A451A008E; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:00:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oMop92kH5ecS; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:00:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-x22d.google.com (mail-vb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5D41A01F5; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:00:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m10so5925545vbh.32 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:00:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=K/35HLvc2O6vIpnatLchvwSRG/VWJno2aVgUQtZe/og=; b=xQBdslz4wHHp8JwHLAFnmfLEDWaAe5o7b48QrJ6tYBelJ2V2sbH6ZwtkZWFn8Qo7w2 w1s87/gRYRs3tCZrYpTLfDVuugeh7DwKveGwXkPgGYFpduDfxrOZI+yo1xoAFKGpRgdp HpKFeV/ZT9fMZVxoLAaNGFavIbzysCUXMjc7d5Zcl6xwBkn7yTmXJlGjf7Nq2R42gauB 160/poTO0sWdKCM0pkMpBKfuwEcOGqKtuksXWcB16fCjXdRmV1jhvDUPdQoZjFcA4Hxv HLDPbtgnPlprMSJd6aNQFFD1rppCayJcsWydfnWKbuJQ/kcieEUJpRejXE7iUK8lGJnf wDjg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.106.107 with SMTP id gt11mr24075848vdb.7.1392123601554; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:00:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:00:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20140124201637.988.3372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:00:01 -0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133ccf6c112d404f2210874 Cc: ietf Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:00:22 -0000 --001a1133ccf6c112d404f2210874 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thank you Kerry for your comments, It will be addressed by the authors. Kind Regards, 2014-02-10 16:44 GMT-03:00 Kerry Lynn : > Hi Jonathan, > > I apologize for the fact that these comments/questions are late but offer > them anyway... > > > 3. Applicability Statement > > OLD: > > Operationally, the scope of this protocol is administratively > determined. In other words, the scope of dissemination is determined > by routers configured to disallow transmission or reception of MPL > messages on a subset of interfaces. > > > This language predates the alignment with I-D.ietf-6man-multicast-scopes > and I suspect > it is no longer generally true. I recommend deleting it. > > > 4.1. MPL Domains > > OLD: > > When MPL is used in deployments that use administratively defined > scopes that cover, for example, multiple subnets based on different > underlying network technologies, Admin-Local scope (scop value 4) and > /or Site-Local scope (scop value 5) SHOULD be used. > > > I'm not clear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are > in use, a node > should participate in the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS multicast address for each > multicast > scope in use or just the highest scope in use. > > > 5.4 MPL Forwarder Parameters > > OLD: > > PROACTIVE_FORWARDING A boolean value that indicates whether the MPL > Forwarder schedules MPL Data Message transmissions after receiving > them for the first time. It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL > Interfaces attached to the same link of a given MPL Domain use the > same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING and has a default value of > TRUE. The mechanism for setting PROACTIVE_FORWARDING is not > specified within this document. > > SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME The minimum lifetime for an entry in the > Seed Set. SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME has a default value of 30 > minutes. It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarders use the same > value for SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME for a given MPL Domain and has a > default value of 30 minutes. The mechanism for setting > SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME is not specified within this document. > > > NEW: > > ... > PROACTIVE_FORWARDING has a default value of TRUE. > > ... > It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarders use the same > value for SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME for a given MPL Domain and *use* a > default value of 30 minutes. > > I think you were already planning to delete the RECOMMEND that all MPL > Interfaces > on the same link use the same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. The second > suggestion is just grammatical. > > Regards, -K- > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:16 PM, The IESG wrote: > >> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy >> networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: >> - 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)' >> as Proposed Standard >> >> This is a second last call, the first one having been abandoned to send >> the document back to the working group. But the latest revision addresses >> comments that were received during the first last call. >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments may be >> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> 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 file can be obtained via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ballot/ >> >> >> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --001a1133ccf6c112d404f2210874 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you Kerry for your comments,

It w= ill be addressed by the authors.

Kind Regards,


2014-02-10 = 16:44 GMT-03:00 Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>:
Hi Jonathan,

I apologize for the f= act that these comments/questions are late but offer them anyway...


3. Applicability Statement

OLD:
   Operationally, the scope of this proto=
col is administratively
   determined.  In other words, the scope of dissemination is determined
   by routers configured to disallow transmission or reception of MPL
   messages on a subset of interfaces.
This language predates the alignment with I-D.ietf-6man-multicast-sco= pes and I suspect
it is no longer generally true.=A0 I recommend deletin= g it.


4.1.=A0 MPL Domains

OLD: 
   When MPL is used in deployments that use administratively defined
   scopes that cover, for example, multiple subnets based on different
   underlying network technologies, Admin-Local scope (scop value 4) and
   /or Site-Local scope (scop value 5) SHOULD be used.
=A0
I&= #39;m not clear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are= in use, a node
should participate in the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS multicast a= ddress for each multicast
scope in use or just the highest scope in use.


5.4= =A0 MPL Forwarder Parameters

OLD:
   PROACTIVE_FORWARD=
ING  A boolean value that indicates whether the MPL
      Forwarder schedules MPL Data Message transmissions after receiving
      them for the first time.  It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL
      Interfaces attached to the same link of a given MPL Domain use the
      same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING and has a default value of
      TRUE.  The mechanism for setting PROACTIVE_FORWARDING is not
      specified within this document.

   SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME  The minimum lifetime for an entry in the
      Seed Set.  SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME has a default value of 30
      minutes.  It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarders use the same
      value for SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME for a given MPL Domain and has a
      default value of 30 minutes.  The mechanism for setting
      SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME is not specified within this document.

NEW:
      ...
      PROACTIVE_FORWARDING ha=
s a default value of TRUE.
      ...
      It is RECOMMENDED t=
hat all MPL Forwarders use the same
      value for SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME for a given MPL Domain and use a
      default value of 30 minutes.
I think you were already planning t= o delete the RECOMMEND that all MPL Interfaces
on the same link use the = same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING.=A0 The second
suggestion is just gr= ammatical.

Regards, -K-




On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:16 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@i= etf.org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Rou= ting Over Low power and Lossy
networks WG (roll) to consider the following document:
- 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)'
=A0 <draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt> as Proposed Standard

This is a second last call, the first one having been abandoned to send
the document back to the working group. But the latest revision addresses comments that were received during the first last call.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailin= g lists by 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

=A0 =A0This document specifies the Multicast Protocol for Low power and
=A0 =A0Lossy Networks (MPL) that provides IPv6 multicast forwarding in
=A0 =A0constrained networks. =A0MPL avoids the need to construct or maintai= n
=A0 =A0any multicast forwarding topology, disseminating messages to all MPL=
=A0 =A0Forwarders in an MPL Domain. =A0MPL uses the Trickle algorithm to =A0 =A0manage message transmissions for both control and data-plane
=A0 =A0messages. =A0Different Trickle parameter configurations allow MPL to=
=A0 =A0trade between dissemination latency and transmission efficiency.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-m= cast/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-tr= ickle-mcast/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

=A0 =A0= http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/



_______________________________________________
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


--001a1133ccf6c112d404f2210874-- From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Tue Feb 11 05:03:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A551A01F5 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:03:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.777 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.777 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GlIjNEAzrkdb for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:03:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x232.google.com (mail-vc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73EB11A0186 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:03:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ik5so5819419vcb.37 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:03:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7oe4GbxpN6tyHaV0WH06MGKajKZEJ39ao0aRIJkYd8M=; b=mUIfXznOGuFPsmA4LDicbMCNWSuRsXkQ/fETCxRDXGNSnXKouIN4WpgyKqGiN4p7ui C8boQLHNv766bK5hAUJXGEZ9RwgOWOjCcpOhleseiR0blFpREIOdi+i567ysLtVrZTHY FWJXYDQuSL6NVkvOJCmgvBfcEE3QfDpvKGGAxCfWnySyw2BonB3FhZLJaIO+C83rPTTw CrM1Wvll7q07dE1+Me1IExmFGVvHukAsbYRGhoPdH2DKiQelFr4bWKfJ9DDBVvUMFWBJ azlI0dZ6kybTbsk4mPp03yy9xs39FHSVPGEZl2tsbFDrLWAU9i5BvIrUMZZbNQc4cyIn 9FRA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.29.137 with SMTP id ry9mr28441770vcb.6.1392123827798; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:03:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:03:47 -0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133935c3d4aff04f2211640 Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:03:53 -0000 --001a1133935c3d4aff04f2211640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 *Hello,The authors of draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration have requested wg adoption.See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/ Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting this as a work item. You are asked to indicate if you think that this is work that the wg should be doing and whether this draft is an acceptable starting point. Adding whether you can/will review or not is useful.Note that active support is required for adoption. Silence is a vote against adoption.This adoption call will end on Thrusday, March 6th. 2014, (with the presentation in London IETF 89).Thank you in advance,Kind Regards,Michael & Ines.* --001a1133935c3d4aff04f2211640 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,


The authors of draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuratio= n have requested wg adoption.

See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-co= nfiguration/


Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg ad= opting this as a work item. =A0You are asked to indicate if you think that = this is work that the wg should be doing and whether this draft is an accep= table starting point. =A0Adding whether you can/will review or not is usefu= l.

Note that active support is required for adoption. =A0Silenc= e is a vote against adoption.

This adoption ca= ll will end on Thrusday, =A0March 6th. 2014, (with the presentation in Lond= on IETF 89).


Thank you in advance,


Kind Regards,



Michael & Ines.


=
--001a1133935c3d4aff04f2211640-- From d.sturek@att.net Tue Feb 11 05:38:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ADE51A0302 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:38:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QwsAUmtuxHlP for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm8-vm5.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm8-vm5.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.63.126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFE61A01F5 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [216.39.60.169] by nm8.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Feb 2014 13:38:24 -0000 Received: from [67.195.22.117] by tm5.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Feb 2014 13:38:24 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp112.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Feb 2014 13:38:24 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1392125904; bh=999iFYYGGoHMYPFomiBhsUN46K+a54iH5U9HRQNk5sw=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type; b=bOWfakjBzPVX747I7q5Sc/OAYx24uujGibHF+8FOtg2tImzI0H7wGuxX/RKHcMN5M+GBpy4WsWOSB0VcdB/XDUTSFHuteFGKadKfQAF6KIZSILVYaGDD3fqK03MutCygxz/Q6x4T3N2h0bEE4IydonGu2Xt+LR3T1lXYk4UWK4c= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 684472.77517.bm@smtp112.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: w7PwN9YVM1lMLSu1VPxVNtWiJASwTro9qWip4v_s9uPsIbw kXhAQIzR_9PSDjU5aBbArAKpJ50g_VktDQTQWl6GfFGlq.yKUIwLoqlWFE3X DumI4tQbBdoJhy5IrAS_j_9COycd3dDUs8r1B.Epjeas3DzytG7LIMzBHaWf qAVQSYc8AueK9HeBIaLoyF7nyu0TZogJcDYfvajWaSW7SjSC8hWqD139Ndzp qEKhBfNVMHhdYRlYC84z1eAn1UCCjs0zsld3e3yveUbQdqBJvLVcnIQIFEsh Sm8xwcyHd6uBAcQpVjVu_3uSvXTA8dC9qvzNUuHkhjqNDmEevahEIjLIKKUL 3jaME6KInG7_3E1BkHreHUZV9UYSm3nPYCp.bSChBiIEuE3xr0_VJIodNkqj 3mIr1cwV.Bl6JT4ITD0gu7Uo8O4VQGHVhArHJeBNDD1nwa9sdfa_jZAslKUm ZnKi45rumcEK8KbjDF4jww2kB4pfuK9WBatLZ1YVNKdQEPqwpSPt73i4bliV tttxJDEsIRgFM5TC.bL.HxpimnLu9oexcvQFv03YtjKLbJKfjkMpSsf7oHZR USYuc X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.0.5] (d.sturek@108.225.227.50 with plain [67.195.15.5]) by smtp112.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2014 05:38:24 -0800 PST User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:38:19 -0800 From: Don Sturek To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration References: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3474941903_54268" Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:38:27 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3474941903_54268 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Michael and Ines, I would be in favor of adoption. Updating MPL parameters as topologies change and experience shows better selections for the Trickle Parameters is an important feature for multicast support in mesh networks. Don Sturek From: Ines Robles Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:03 AM To: roll Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration Hello, The authors of draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration have requested wg adoption. See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/ Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting this as a work item. You are asked to indicate if you think that this is work that the wg should be doing and whether this draft is an acceptable starting point. Adding whether you can/will review or not is useful. Note that active support is required for adoption. Silence is a vote against adoption. This adoption call will end on Thrusday, March 6th. 2014, (with the presentation in London IETF 89). Thank you in advance, Kind Regards, Michael & Ines. _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll --B_3474941903_54268 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Michael and Ines,
=

I would be in favor of adoption.

Updating MPL parameters as topologies change and experience shows better s= elections for the Trickle Parameters is an important feature for multicast s= upport in mesh networks.

Don Sturek

<= /div>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>Reply-To: Routing Over Low power an= d Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:0= 3 AM
To: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Cc: <= /span> Michael Richardson <mcr+iet= f@sandelman.ca>
Subject: [R= oll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration

Hello,


The authors of draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configurat= ion have requested wg adoption.

See: h= ttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/<= /span>


Please do respond to the list as to whet= her you support the wg adopting this as a work item.  You are asked to = indicate if you think that this is work that the wg should be doing and whet= her this draft is an acceptable starting point.  Adding whether you can= /will review or not is useful.

Note that active sup= port is required for adoption.  Silence is a vote against adoption.

This adoption call will end on Thrusday,  March 6= th. 2014, (with the presentation in London IETF 89).


Thank you in ad= vance,


<= /p>

Kind Regards,



Michael & Ines.


 _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/roll --B_3474941903_54268-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Tue Feb 11 05:54:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0721A0310 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:54:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4ZSqfq2_yB8 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:54:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yh0-x236.google.com (mail-yh0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645241A030B for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:54:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yh0-f54.google.com with SMTP id z6so6729459yhz.13 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:54:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=BJ2zqxdE6Uk5XoOd/q2FYJHWgLnNegvh70Ve/BEphss=; b=r5z8iO9crG9g6wOhcK0rU24idGGQoEGYcc/LkMWNBWzsXY2tNFF3v4QnJqnJgOMmji LNBF+Q7MAeZWZyCe6m4DLDNND/4BiseSL3hxd7Gue3e4CGXz6fQzWHBhcA3F/eIsWUYS y81YIB+bEiPuZqIZjhdoKSeh+q95UNvKzJ/76o8rqC/txbHhrCCVL3WiJLQdrhU+/wz9 romktVty6A1k38tgBzTbAbHfgo6Gtm20AXOwc6hkOCwLN4NEH4+/DtIW9JrnVb6hSEWT KJWYWnwdJxcnSB7eswlXM8P+YTZa4gKKnZ3IkzCvCeXBEB5SLA/mlXzxwGqAERg/qxik NApA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.123.193 with SMTP id v41mr2104483yhh.68.1392126866788; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.170.222.3 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:54:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:54:26 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:54:29 -0000 On 2/11/14, Ines Robles wrote: >Silence is a vote against > adoption. Why is that? usually in engineering *silence* should always have no value. Against SHOULD be with engineering reason, and agreeing MAY be with engineering reason. AB From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Tue Feb 11 06:04:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14B41A030C for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:04:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nB8Hbad720OO for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x235.google.com (mail-vc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8561A00BC for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id ie18so5980992vcb.12 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:04:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=5ivGFuyQDVy3vxuLPf5rL3DIFK3TgwlCF0C6g7l2foI=; b=FLdOBGF3mx03xTSN3hahghptavCt/xTKmXtv/iLEvMbKtxu01MDwFMF5gPSaN3xEkZ f04y3XKJN2grGo30xqJmS4G+kaw4OV4LdiSznaK9l0xIHKTAdxGqSIpPCdhhlBjaLqUV JAGtZK2PGAAaIRPTqb/dAxve8L6JUbev8O4kA1yxMLL2ERmBpw0w3+ISt9ZpyFjQmcds Vos2KuNhG7aMdRxtpHMR02TD9vOxziA+joJWfifiR4EyW+UE/lNt8LFNEXxagjxKdTYC awT9BZhSrnklnYSoSm+Jo/RaHAqa4MCYmSpmetvKp1W4KBUEwUnekBXUDzIjzm0GNEbR 9QXw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.106.84 with SMTP id w20mr28586521vco.18.1392127466652; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:04:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:04:26 -0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3435c021ca3904f221efa1 Subject: Re: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:04:30 -0000 --047d7b3435c021ca3904f221efa1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Abdussalam, I apologize if I didnt use the correct words, and thanks for your comment. I would want to say with it, is that it is important the opinion of each member of the WG for that and the silence is not good. But if you don't answer, yes, it has no value, like you say. Thanks and Regards, Ines. 2014-02-11 10:54 GMT-03:00 Abdussalam Baryun : > On 2/11/14, Ines Robles wrote: > >Silence is a vote against > > adoption. > > Why is that? usually in engineering *silence* should always have no > value. Against SHOULD be with engineering reason, and agreeing MAY be > with engineering reason. > > AB > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > --047d7b3435c021ca3904f221efa1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Abdussalam,

I apologize if I d= idnt use the correct words, and thanks for your comment.
I would want to say with it, is that it is important the= opinion of each member of the WG for that and the silence is not good.

But if you don't answer, yes, it has no= value, like you say.

Thanks and Regar= ds,

Ines.


2014-02-11 10:54 GMT-03:00 Abdussalam Ba= ryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>:
On 2/11/14, Ines =A0Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Silence is a vote against
> adoption.

Why is that? usually in engineering *silence* should always have no value. Against SHOULD be with engineering reason, and agreeing MAY be
with engineering reason.

AB

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

--047d7b3435c021ca3904f221efa1-- From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Tue Feb 11 06:21:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8071A0386 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:21:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lKIM7CeM1U6o for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:21:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816B31A0399 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:21:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49724 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WDED5-00011m-D1; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:21:15 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:21:15 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/148 Message-ID: <067.7c464680c53f628cfab1cc71ac58b5ba@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 148 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #148: Delete paragraph of Applicability Statement not more alignment with multicast-scope draft X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:21:25 -0000 #148: Delete paragraph of Applicability Statement not more alignment with multicast-scope draft http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08485.html From: Kerry Lynn Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:44:36 -0500 3. Applicability Statement OLD: Operationally, the scope of this protocol is administratively determined. In other words, the scope of dissemination is determined by routers configured to disallow transmission or reception of MPL messages on a subset of interfaces. This language predates the alignment with I-D.ietf-6man-multicast-scopes and I suspect it is no longer generally true. I recommend deleting it. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Tue Feb 11 06:24:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054621A03AD for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:24:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sWSNqT5_Xm6G for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:24:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1891A032D for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:24:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49809 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WDEGC-0000RL-4h; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:24:28 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:24:28 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/149 Message-ID: <067.194a72a73dbb35158a97d15d2e50bd89@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 149 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #149: Unclear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are in use X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:24:37 -0000 #149: Unclear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are in use Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08485.html From: Kerry Lynn Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:44:36 -0500 4.1. MPL Domains OLD: When MPL is used in deployments that use administratively defined scopes that cover, for example, multiple subnets based on different underlying network technologies, Admin-Local scope (scop value 4) and /or Site-Local scope (scop value 5) SHOULD be used. I'm not clear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are in use, a node should participate in the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS multicast address for each multicast scope in use or just the highest scope in use. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Tue Feb 11 06:25:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A8C1A0332 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:25:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KhyGDn_T3OOp for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:25:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809701A0326 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:25:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49838 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WDEH3-0004sS-DH; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:25:21 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:25:21 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/148#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.8c0deb217034d20e90448a85ba4d7a51@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.7c464680c53f628cfab1cc71ac58b5ba@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 148 In-Reply-To: <067.7c464680c53f628cfab1cc71ac58b5ba@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #148: Delete paragraph of Applicability Statement not more alignment with multicast-scope draft X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:25:31 -0000 #148: Delete paragraph of Applicability Statement not more alignment with multicast-scope draft Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): An Editorial comment: 5.4 MPL Forwarder Parameters OLD: PROACTIVE_FORWARDING A boolean value that indicates whether the MPL Forwarder schedules MPL Data Message transmissions after receiving them for the first time. It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Interfaces attached to the same link of a given MPL Domain use the same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING and has a default value of TRUE. The mechanism for setting PROACTIVE_FORWARDING is not specified within this document. SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME The minimum lifetime for an entry in the Seed Set. SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME has a default value of 30 minutes. It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarders use the same value for SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME for a given MPL Domain and has a default value of 30 minutes. The mechanism for setting SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME is not specified within this document. NEW: ... PROACTIVE_FORWARDING has a default value of TRUE. ... It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarders use the same value for SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME for a given MPL Domain and use a default value of 30 minutes. I think you were already planning to delete the RECOMMEND that all MPL Interfaces on the same link use the same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. The second suggestion is just grammatical. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From mcr@sandelman.ca Tue Feb 11 11:38:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDC81A070F for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:38:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.029 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KUBxmJRYTnJp for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE1A1A0707 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4267920036; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:55:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 072CC647C9; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:38:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E647663AB2; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:38:00 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org X-Attribution: mcr 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: roll@ietf.org, Ines Robles Subject: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:38:06 -0000 --=-=-= draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology, which expires on Friday from: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology/ describes a way to do mixed storing/non-storing topologies. My first question is to the authors: 1) do you continue to pursue this work? What is your intent for this document? 2) will you update with any new results? To the WG: 3) is there interest in persuing this line of investigation at this time? We had previously put investigation of this on hold until we figured out a number of other things. Please read this document, and consider whether this document would help advance this, or if we need one or a number of approaches. Do we have a good enough problem statement? If we recharter in Toronto, I would expect that solving this problem will among the most important reasons to re-charter. (again, please recall that absence of comments implies disinterest. +1 are welcome) Abstract The RPL specification allows nodes running with storing or non- storing modes to operate in the same network. We describe how such a mix can result in network partitioning even when there are plenty of physical links available in the network. The partitioning affects both upwards (nodes to root) and downwards (root to leaf) traffic. This routing pathology stems from a recommendation made in the RPL specification forcing nodes with different modes of operation to join the RPL network as leaf nodes only. We propose a solution that modifies RPL by mandating that all the nodes parse and interpret source routing headers and storing mode nodes to sometimes act like a non-storing mode root by attaching source routing headers. -- 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) iQCVAwUBUvp8FoqHRg3pndX9AQLE+QQA2F2BwRCflp8pECmY97jjtrnMmrU9p9zk 9ko5tgcFLrOWSDQ2blDJAQVGBLUlENX/DcuKHNQrs3LZr7/dcBcSi9G0QyPfQZf3 fdtlV2Da7OpD8vSHUCLozvEUklhQO7MYMk/H2wKQQtnaoC0JsDVrgwAf4OtDy+fD ql93EuAR7TM= =naTX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Tue Feb 11 12:27:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263AB1A0722 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:27:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mD9plEAXn8yn for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:26:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail41.extendcp.co.uk (mail41.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.44.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE491A0721 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:26:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from host86-156-114-191.range86-156.btcentralplus.com ([86.156.114.191] helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mail41.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) id 1WDJuy-0007BY-Cx for roll@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:26:56 +0000 Message-ID: <52FA8791.1040904@gridmerge.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:26:57 +0000 From: Robert Cragie Organization: Gridmerge Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: roll@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms060808080806020609040600" X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com X-Extend-Src: mailout Subject: Re: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:27:01 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms060808080806020609040600 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020602040301080404020808" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020602040301080404020808 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agreed but silence is tacit disapproval as a positive indication of=20 approval is being asked for. On that note, I support adoption of=20 draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration by the ROLL WG. Robert On 11/02/2014 2:04 PM, Ines Robles wrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > > I apologize if I didnt use the correct words, and thanks for your comme= nt. > > I would want to say with it, is that it is important the opinion of=20 > each member of the WG for that and the silence is not good. > > But if you don't answer, yes, it has no value, like you say. > > Thanks and Regards, > > Ines. > > > 2014-02-11 10:54 GMT-03:00 Abdussalam Baryun=20 > >: > > On 2/11/14, Ines Robles > wrote: > >Silence is a vote against > > adoption. > > Why is that? usually in engineering *silence* should always have no= > value. Against SHOULD be with engineering reason, and agreeing MAY = be > with engineering reason. > > AB > > _______________________________________________ > 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 --------------020602040301080404020808 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agreed but silence is tacit disapproval as a positive indication of approval is being asked for.

On that note, I support adoption of draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration by the ROLL WG.

Robert

On 11/02/2014 2:04 PM, Ines Robles wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,

I apologize if I didnt use the correct words, and= thanks for your comment.

I would want to say with it, is that it is important the opinion of each member of the WG for that and the silence is not good.

But if you don't answer, yes, it has no value, like you say.

Thanks and Regards,

Ines.


2014-02-11 10:54 GMT-03:00 Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>:
On 2/11/14, Ines  Robles <mariainesr= obles@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Silence is a vote against
> adoption.

Why is that? usually in engineering *silence* should always have no
value. Against SHOULD be with engineering reason, and agreeing MAY be
with engineering reason.

AB

_______________________________________________
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

--------------020602040301080404020808-- --------------ms060808080806020609040600 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 Fw0xNDAyMTEyMDI2NTdaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSLemdDFtOe/xEWc2hFA773RqWicjBs BgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcw DgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEo MIG5BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgaswgagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVy IE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1p dGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUg RW1haWwgQ0ECEFwxUNvELajLmHIeX9p072YwgbsGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGroIGoMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxm b3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhBcMVDbxC2oy5hyHl/adO9m MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBACl0DSjwM0i1jNAs27b5FUJcTRpN04zPG7Id/bysMJi+kxyu PNZGRcyu6TU14Vck/pXBzwbCiqfF7V+vfkeBezPtYD/owLj2BubcbCgSVv+HpNtVZJwL9C2/ 4ZLFh3dwZL4ynE9uGOjclfKr7s6mb/dN0WhsHrTU0J3uMvrGw80NvCGb8JPGYc4aoAe//XKG ogVqtN3Ick8ex+HIRjY2/JOn2R8iIKC6MwIt6RJ4fvLbHqk/W4uIeMuH9dQXaUgfpdjkKPu2 i4ywGDnpzONvPwkKNiSJQ4442In8mDrdzTq9hylLaezaTGIWR6oE3BzSNRew3aLIAOsNRq9N QScZBVQAAAAAAAA= --------------ms060808080806020609040600-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Tue Feb 11 15:06:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B281A07D2 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:06:37 -0800 (PST) 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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mwteF0ikUtNY for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yh0-x22e.google.com (mail-yh0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0F41A07B8 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yh0-f46.google.com with SMTP id v1so7648061yhn.33 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:06:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bZOzbgcRJqT8kibkHE+Vt/llD6Ao+3LAurygKtOlvmA=; b=ZzSzNCkxWCQEPuN2pHE2LhdeZW0IZ/htLC5v2hgptbGV86Sr9/0pS7e4NpOFxLshwX cohv/PhSm0oVssUeWmzZWNj5zzhLdelKw9lThcF+NzveA0XeWb+bjraKTTIVi/GgrRN4 4+lmiOvINvjtATtmROn4QIUqb8iPmEKzPrIDrVYrWeOTWmWX0J7D3fGmNy0kKlY7cLia giN1pfU+q1gJkGwAcUWKc2x6a7O6Yjad6A4U9ko9XUFHD5qeYsFF+dG0ycuxS1bRyn/k +2OB559OJOD/dCTQyDof38gGUaBCQqVApBavSE+1SWfSXaMdIppEdt2x6qwo0TOkQrAl zs5Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.58.200 with SMTP id q48mr4722975yhc.88.1392159991444; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:06:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.170.222.3 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:06:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:06:31 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6398c2bbca04f22981b6 Cc: Ines Robles , "draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:06:38 -0000 --089e013c6398c2bbca04f22981b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The draft problem is interesting but the solution approach needs more investigation. AB On Tuesday, February 11, 2014, Michael Richardson wrote: > > draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology, which expires on Friday from: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology/ > > describes a way to do mixed storing/non-storing topologies. My first > question is to the authors: > 1) do you continue to pursue this work? What is your intent for this > document? > 2) will you update with any new results? > > To the WG: > 3) is there interest in persuing this line of investigation at this time? > We had previously put investigation of this on hold until we figured > out > a number of other things. Please read this document, and consider > whether this document would help advance this, or if we need one or a > number of approaches. > Do we have a good enough problem statement? Sorry I am not sure what is the statement? > > If we recharter in Toronto, I would expect that solving this problem will > among the most > important reasons to re-charter. > > (again, please recall that absence of comments implies disinterest. +1 are > welcome) > > > Abstract > > The RPL specification allows nodes running with storing or non- > storing modes to operate in the same network. We describe how such a > mix can result in network partitioning even when there are plenty of > physical links available in the network. The partitioning affects > both upwards (nodes to root) and downwards (root to leaf) traffic. > This routing pathology stems from a recommendation made in the RPL > specification forcing nodes with different modes of operation to join > the RPL network as leaf nodes only. We propose a solution that > modifies RPL by mandating that all the nodes parse and interpret > source routing headers and storing mode nodes to sometimes act like a > non-storing mode root by attaching source routing headers. > > > -- > Michael Richardson >, Sandelman > Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > --089e013c6398c2bbca04f22981b6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The draft=A0problem is interesting but the solution approach needs more= investigation.=A0

AB

On Tuesday, February= 11, 2014, Michael Richardson wrote:

draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology, which expires on Friday from:
=A0 =A0http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ko-rol= l-mix-network-pathology/

describes a way to do mixed storing/non-storing topologies. =A0 My first question is to the authors:
=A0 1) do you continue to pursue this work? =A0What is your intent for this=
=A0 =A0 =A0document?
=A0 2) will you update with any new results?

To the WG:
=A0 3) is there interest in persuing this line of investigation at this tim= e?
=A0 =A0 =A0We had previously put investigation of this on hold until we fig= ured out
=A0 =A0 =A0a number of other things. =A0 Please read this document, and con= sider
=A0 =A0 =A0whether this document would help advance this, or if we need one= or a
=A0 =A0 =A0number of approaches.
=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0Do we have a good enough problem statement?
Sorry I am not=A0sure what is the statement?
=A0

If we recharter in Toronto, I would expect that solving this problem will a= mong the most
important reasons to re-charter.

(again, please recall that absence of comments implies disinterest. +1 are = welcome)


Abstract

=A0 =A0The RPL specification allows nodes running with storing or non-
=A0 =A0storing modes to operate in the same network. =A0We describe how suc= h a
=A0 =A0mix can result in network partitioning even when there are plenty of=
=A0 =A0physical links available in the network. =A0The partitioning affects=
=A0 =A0both upwards (nodes to root) and downwards (root to leaf) traffic. =A0 =A0This routing pathology stems from a recommendation made in the RPL =A0 =A0specification forcing nodes with different modes of operation to joi= n
=A0 =A0the RPL network as leaf nodes only. =A0We propose a solution that =A0 =A0modifies RPL by mandating that all the nodes parse and interpret
=A0 =A0source routing headers and storing mode nodes to sometimes act like = a
=A0 =A0non-storing mode root by attaching source routing headers.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, = Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair. =A0 =A0http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/<= /a>

--089e013c6398c2bbca04f22981b6-- From axel-ietf@axelcdv.com Tue Feb 11 16:05:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197071A0791 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:05:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QdSQwDWlvGKG for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739EB1A078A for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D53F7600CD for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:05:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.1.47] (cha75-1-78-192-0-189.fbxo.proxad.net [78.192.0.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B6B51D26AB for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:05:20 -0800 (PST) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Axel_Colin_de_Verdi=E8re?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_831F2002-C616-4890-8D37-E813523846FC" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:05:18 +0100 References: <20140124201637.988.3372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4C62FB50-C8E8-4CEA-BD42-B64076883379@gmail.com> <0d753074c679b2f79f1ba4acb18cd7f3@xs4all.nl> <001AF5D9-5760-42D5-8BA9-4F421B39ACDA@axelcdv.com> <47541D76-F545-4088-A7D9-4D4E15061224@cisco.com> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: <47541D76-F545-4088-A7D9-4D4E15061224@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 00:05:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_831F2002-C616-4890-8D37-E813523846FC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Jonathan, Thank you for your reply. See inline: Le 10 f=E9vr. 2014 =E0 15:03, Jonathan Hui (johui) a = =E9crit : >=20 > Hi Axel, >=20 > Thanks for your review and comments. See my comments below: >=20 > On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Axel Colin de Verdi=E8re = wrote: >=20 >> I've reviewed the draft, and I have a couple comments/questions if = that's not too late: >>=20 >> - I don't see why MPL forwarders on the same link should have the = same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. It is now RECOMMENDED to make it = so, but I don't see the rationale for this recommendation: on the = opposite, I think it would allow some forwarders with less power = restrictions to be more proactive than others. >=20 > Good point. If there are no objections, I can remove this RECOMMENDED = statement. >=20 >> - Isn't there a risk that only specifying SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME = without any kind of hysteresis mechanism lead to old Data messages being = reinjected in the network? For example, if an MPL forwarder A resets its = Control Message trickle timer with a seed (S) close to expiration, there = is a risk that a neighbor forwarder that has expired that seed = interprets the Control Message as A having new Data messages from seed = S, thus resetting its timer for this seed and potentially retransmitting = the corresponding Data message(s). >=20 > The hysteresis is controlled using the = DATA/CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS parameters. The = SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME should be much longer than these to help ensure = that devices maintain state until the propagation has completed. Alright, got it, thanks. >=20 >> - In section 9.2, it is unclear when the M flag should be cleared or = set: why would it be arbitrarily cleared and not indicate whether or not = this message's sequence number is the largest one received? >=20 > The M flag helps indicate whether a receiving node should reset its = Trickle timer. If the M flag is not set and the sequence number is = lower than what is already known, there is no need to reset the Trickle = timer. I understand that, I just did not fully grasp the formulation in the = draft. In clear, I don't get why this text: When transmitting an MPL Data Message, the MPL Forwarder MUST either set the M flag to zero or set it to a level that indicates whether or not the message's sequence number is the largest value that has been received from the MPL Seed. Is not simply formulated this way: When transmitting an MPL Data Message, the MPL Forwarder MUST set the M flag to a level that indicates whether or not the message's sequence number is the largest value that has been received from the MPL Seed. The text from the draft seems to indicate that the M flag can be = arbitrarily set to zero, or set to the proper value indicating the state = of the forwarder. Axel >=20 > =97 > Jonathan Hui >=20 >> Thank you, >>=20 >> Axel >>=20 >> Le 3 f=E9vr. 2014 =E0 11:23, peter van der Stok = a =E9crit : >>=20 >>> I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues >>> raised during the WG last call concerning our applications, have = been addressed adequately. >>>=20 >>> peter van der stok >>>=20 >>> Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-01-27 16:58: >>>> I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues I >>>> raised during the WG last call have been addressed and, in my = opinion, >>>> the document is now ready for publication. >>>> - Ralph >>>> On Jan 24, 2014, at 3:16 PM 1/24/14, The IESG = wrote: >>>>> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power = and Lossy >>>>> networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: >>>>> - 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)' >>>>> as Proposed Standard >>>>> This is a second last call, the first one having been abandoned to = send >>>>> the document back to the working group. But the latest revision = addresses >>>>> comments that were received during the first last call. >>>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and = solicits >>>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to = the >>>>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments = may be >>>>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >>>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>>>> 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 file can be obtained via >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ >>>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via >>>>> = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ballot/ >>>>> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Roll mailing list >> Roll@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll --Apple-Mail=_831F2002-C616-4890-8D37-E813523846FC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Hi = Jonathan,

Thank you for your reply. See = inline:



Hi Axel,

Thanks for = your review and comments.  See my comments below:

On Feb 8, = 2014, at 1:26 AM, Axel Colin de Verdi=E8re <axel-ietf@axelcdv.com> = wrote:

I've reviewed the draft, and I = have a couple comments/questions if that's not too late:

- I = don't see why MPL forwarders on the same link should have the same value = for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. It is now RECOMMENDED to make it so, but I = don't see the rationale for this recommendation: on the opposite, I = think it would allow some forwarders with less power restrictions to be = more proactive than others.

Good point.  If = there are no objections, I can remove this RECOMMENDED = statement.

- Isn't there a risk that = only specifying SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME without any kind of hysteresis = mechanism lead to old Data messages being reinjected in the network? For = example, if an MPL forwarder A resets its Control Message trickle timer = with a seed (S) close to expiration, there is a risk that a neighbor = forwarder that has expired that seed interprets the Control Message as A = having new Data messages from seed S, thus resetting its timer for this = seed and potentially retransmitting the corresponding Data = message(s).

The hysteresis is controlled using the = DATA/CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS parameters.  The = SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME should be much longer than these to help ensure = that devices maintain state until the propagation has = completed.

Alright, got it, = thanks.


- In section 9.2, it is unclear when = the M flag should be cleared or set: why would it be arbitrarily cleared = and not indicate whether or not this message's sequence number is the = largest one received?

The M flag helps indicate = whether a receiving node should reset its Trickle timer.  If the M = flag is not set and the sequence number is lower than what is already = known, there is no need to reset the Trickle = timer.

I understand that, I just = did not fully grasp the formulation in the draft. In clear, I don't get = why this text:

When transmitting an MPL Data Message, the =
MPL Forwarder MUST either
   set the M flag to zero or set it to a level that indicates whether or
   not the message's sequence number is the largest value that has been
   received from the MPL Seed.

Is not simply =
formulated this way:

When transmitting an MPL Data Message, the MPL Forwarder MUST
   set the M flag to a level that indicates whether or
   not the message's sequence number is the largest value that has been
   received from the MPL Seed.

The text = from the draft seems to indicate that the M flag can be arbitrarily set = to zero, or set to the proper value indicating the state of the = forwarder.

Axel


=97
Jonathan = Hui

Thank you,

Axel

Le 3 = f=E9vr. 2014 =E0 11:23, peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> a =E9crit = :

I've reviewed = draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt.  The issues
raised during = the WG last call concerning our applications, have been addressed = adequately.

peter van der stok

Ralph Droms schreef op = 2014-01-27 16:58:
I've reviewed = draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt.  The issues I
raised = during the WG last call have been addressed and, in my opinion,
the = document is now ready for publication.
- Ralph
On Jan 24, 2014, at = 3:16 PM 1/24/14, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> = wrote:
The IESG has received a request from = the Routing Over Low power and Lossy
networks WG (roll) to consider = the following document:
- 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy = Networks (MPL)'
<draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt> as = Proposed Standard
This is a second last call, the first one having = been abandoned to send
the document back to the working group. But = the latest revision addresses
comments that were received during the = first last call.
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few = weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send = substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by = 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, = please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated = sorting.
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 file can be obtained = via
ht= tp://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/
IESG = discussion can be tracked = via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ballo= t/
The following IPR Declarations may be related to this = I-D:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/
____________= ___________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/roll
______________________________________= _________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/roll

__________________________________= _____________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/roll

_____________________________= __________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/roll

= --Apple-Mail=_831F2002-C616-4890-8D37-E813523846FC-- From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Tue Feb 11 23:01:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1451A0851 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:01:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VBBJK1qIohDD for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:01:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x22e.google.com (mail-ve0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8491A0830 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:01:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id pa12so6904508veb.19 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:01:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xGfGhlhjIO7igOMfo/vcS9cBREH36ZSfA1VoAPsvOW0=; b=R0F9IX/bErvfenz/egMFjo+lVav/Atuc7ChxLpG/GAchQ5J1/mEhnASPePoPXVGvkV MiJaYEFtWFC5dDAm5nvHwq8WPtGqyJWjAPQLbqTjm9GjmaldamGsYnovPDDRWkS59nhU HH2uQpH8QJqiXyN1g+x6fOt+bKmBXXeitqYZNdtMfZAeco60rmcx6Xm6uIGvVPx3YOXT Z6UjDYvkQGGQ2YnyBvq3sHHIRSAvlkOuKJ928J/qwOa8hmcu5CGWqeWYNfXLZXAEA4l7 FQ19+uyzpEGQmfjZPW2sOBwHqqv9/b9dcJXFaL3rF2RX5ganj5OZtXbG+85wFOJBwcH0 HXag== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.171.68 with SMTP id as4mr26604754vdc.0.1392188511567; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:01:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52FA8791.1040904@gridmerge.com> References: <52FA8791.1040904@gridmerge.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 05:01:51 -0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6dbd9ab1468004f2302598 Subject: Re: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 07:01:54 -0000 --047d7b6dbd9ab1468004f2302598 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Ok, thank you Robert for your comments. Abdussalam, this draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-06 is about consensus, following this I made a mistake when I said that silence doesn't have a value. So I apologize for that, We keep the first email of the thread, if you need answer it, please do it in a new thread, it would be good to finish this topic here, and keep this thread with the focus in draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration. Thank you for your understanding. Kind Regards, Ines. 2014-02-11 17:26 GMT-03:00 Robert Cragie : > Agreed but silence is tacit disapproval as a positive indication of > approval is being asked for. > > On that note, I support adoption of draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration > by the ROLL WG. > > Robert > > > On 11/02/2014 2:04 PM, Ines Robles wrote: > > Hi Abdussalam, > > I apologize if I didnt use the correct words, and thanks for your > comment. > > I would want to say with it, is that it is important the opinion of each > member of the WG for that and the silence is not good. > > But if you don't answer, yes, it has no value, like you say. > > Thanks and Regards, > > Ines. > > > 2014-02-11 10:54 GMT-03:00 Abdussalam Baryun : > >> On 2/11/14, Ines Robles wrote: >> >Silence is a vote against >> > adoption. >> >> Why is that? usually in engineering *silence* should always have no >> value. Against SHOULD be with engineering reason, and agreeing MAY be >> with engineering reason. >> >> AB >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Roll mailing list >> Roll@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing listRoll@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --047d7b6dbd9ab1468004f2302598 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

Ok, th= ank you Robert for your comments.

Abdussalam, = this draft=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-cons= ensus-06=A0is about consensus, following this I made a mistake when I s= aid that silence doesn't have a value. So I apologize for that, We keep= the first email of the thread, if you need answer it, please do it in a ne= w thread, it would be good to finish this topic here, and keep this thread = with the focus in=A0draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration. Thank you for your understanding.

Kind Regards,

Ines.


2014-02-11 17:26 GMT-03:00 Robert Cra= gie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>:
=20 =20 =20
Agreed but silence is tacit disapproval as a positive indication of approval is being asked for.

On that note, I support adoption of draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration by the ROLL WG.

Robert


On 11/02/2014 2:04 PM, Ines Robles wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,

I apologize if I didnt use the correct words, and thanks for your comment.

I would want to say with it, is that it is important the opinion of each member of the WG for that and the silence is not good.

But if you don't answer, yes, it has no value, like you say.

Thanks and Regards,

Ines.


2014-02-11 10:54 GMT-03:00 Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>:
On 2/11/14, Ines =A0Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com= > wrote:
>Silence is a vote against
> adoption.

Why is that? usually in engineering *silence* should always have no
value. Against SHOULD be with engineering reason, and agreeing MAY be
with engineering reason.

AB

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@iet= f.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll



_______________________________________________
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


--047d7b6dbd9ab1468004f2302598-- From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Tue Feb 11 23:13:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4D71A0860 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:13:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ct1kXL9qMj-u for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:13:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFADD1A0844 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:13:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45423 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WDU0Q-0000OK-5p; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:13:14 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:13:14 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/147#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.fb4b6eef043792549b62860bb8473994@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.b6d891fd0f9fd5f4ea28762de50609f7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 147 In-Reply-To: <067.b6d891fd0f9fd5f4ea28762de50609f7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #147: Unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:13:23 -0000 #147: Unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08497.html From: Axel Colin de Verdière Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:05:18 +0100 I understand that, I just did not fully grasp the formulation in the draft. In clear, I don't get why this text: When transmitting an MPL Data Message, the MPL Forwarder MUST either set the M flag to zero or set it to a level that indicates whether or not the message's sequence number is the largest value that has been received from the MPL Seed. Is not simply formulated this way: When transmitting an MPL Data Message, the MPL Forwarder MUST set the M flag to a level that indicates whether or not the message's sequence number is the largest value that has been received from the MPL Seed. The text from the draft seems to indicate that the M flag can be arbitrarily set to zero, or set to the proper value indicating the state of the forwarder. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From stokcons@xs4all.nl Wed Feb 12 00:00:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C714F1A0883 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.397 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oyqJCavipj01 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D92F1A005E for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube7.xs4all.net [194.109.20.205]) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s1C80XlW035074 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:00:34 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl) Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-7-48.w109-210.abo.wanadoo.fr ([109.210.110.48]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:00:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:00:33 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7fdf41b073e0cdfbee6f4b1d87cf3c8b@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (2f9RmLEv3JYz7Km1ZN/j2lEQEdXEKsO4) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, 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, 12 Feb 2014 08:00:38 -0000 The draft presents an interesting solution that can be quite useful. Peter Ines Robles schreef op 2014-02-11 14:03: > Hello, > > The authors of draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration have > requested wg adoption. > > See: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/ > [1] > > Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg > adopting this as a work item.  You are asked to indicate if you think > that this is work that the wg should be doing and whether this draft > is an acceptable starting point.  Adding whether you can/will review > or not is useful. > > Note that active support is required for adoption.  Silence is a vote > against adoption. > > This adoption call will end on Thrusday,  March 6th. 2014, (with the > presentation in London IETF 89). > > Thank you in advance, > > Kind Regards, > > Michael & Ines. > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/ > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From johui@cisco.com Wed Feb 12 01:45:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3751A08C2 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:45:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B0Sbxab4li3r for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60E91A08E2 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:45:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6805; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392198337; x=1393407937; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=qKXOqgVNvqEfC5YVpL5VJrhF0VowjqUpD51t3aqb84Y=; b=fyBJ9ekNEsGqDy5Jc+2sb94yEIXhI6jvscYsOZLby6IeS9JH/Dn+5rjG MBIBMPTgnmOi7/jg78AduY2EgRw0JcateWLH15xekN08QoUdlcS+CzpgH C4P6IOgrcH0D/1ZXjvgbaikegyYq9Zk5ApMqATiZ2750OvjadVRv69iSi c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmEFAKhB+1KtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABagkhEgQ+/JYEQFnSCJgEBBIEJAgEIOwQHMhQRAgQTiAXJFBeOK1WDJIEUBJgqkiGBb4E+gio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,831,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="303469725" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2014 09:45:37 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1C9jbq5029197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:45:37 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.213]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([fe80::200:5efe:173.37.183.34%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 03:45:36 -0600 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard Thread-Index: AQHPJmjOFFqfijPEKUOb4BjvwX4q/w== Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:45:36 +0000 Message-ID: <4BF07220-E5D2-4BA7-B141-BBD70E071256@cisco.com> References: <20140124201637.988.3372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4C62FB50-C8E8-4CEA-BD42-B64076883379@gmail.com> <0d753074c679b2f79f1ba4acb18cd7f3@xs4all.nl> <001AF5D9-5760-42D5-8BA9-4F421B39ACDA@axelcdv.com> <47541D76-F545-4088-A7D9-4D4E15061224@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.78.75] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4BF07220E5D24BA7B141BBD70E071256ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 09:45:41 -0000 --_000_4BF07220E5D24BA7B141BBD70E071256ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Axel, see below: On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Axel Colin de Verdi=E8re > wrote: Le 10 f=E9vr. 2014 =E0 15:03, Jonathan Hui (johui) > a =E9crit : On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Axel Colin de Verdi=E8re > wrote: - In section 9.2, it is unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set: w= hy would it be arbitrarily cleared and not indicate whether or not this mes= sage's sequence number is the largest one received? The M flag helps indicate whether a receiving node should reset its Trickle= timer. If the M flag is not set and the sequence number is lower than wha= t is already known, there is no need to reset the Trickle timer. I understand that, I just did not fully grasp the formulation in the draft.= In clear, I don't get why this text: When transmitting an MPL Data Message, the MPL Forwarder MUST either set the M flag to zero or set it to a level that indicates whether or not the message's sequence number is the largest value that has been received from the MPL Seed. Is not simply formulated this way: When transmitting an MPL Data Message, the MPL Forwarder MUST set the M flag to a level that indicates whether or not the message's sequence number is the largest value that has been received from the MPL Seed. The text from the draft seems to indicate that the M flag can be arbitraril= y set to zero, or set to the proper value indicating the state of the forwa= rder. The text is written to allow one to reduce MPL to a simple flood with packe= t caching to avoid receiving a packet more than once. In this case, there = is no real need to maintain the largest sequence number. =97 Jonathan Hui --_000_4BF07220E5D24BA7B141BBD70E071256ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Axel, see below:

On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Axel Colin de Verdi=E8re <axel-ietf@axelcdv.com> wrote:

Le 10 f=E9vr. 2014 =E0 15:03, Jonathan Hui (johui) <johui@cisco.com> a =E9crit :

On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Axel Colin de Verdi=E8re <axel-ietf@axelcdv.com> wrote:

- In section 9.2, it is unclear when the M flag s= hould be cleared or set: why would it be arbitrarily cleared and not indica= te whether or not this message's sequence number is the largest one receive= d?

The M flag helps indicate whether a receiving node should reset its Trickle= timer.  If the M flag is not set and the sequence number is lower tha= n what is already known, there is no need to reset the Trickle timer.

I understand that, I just did not fully grasp the formulation in the draft.= In clear, I don't get why this text:

When transmitting an MPL Data Message=
, the MPL Forwarder MUST either
   set the M flag to zero or set it to a level that indicates whether or
   not the message's sequence number is the largest value that has been
   received from the MPL Seed.

Is not simpl=
y formulated this way:

When transmitting an MPL Data Message, the MPL Forwarder MUST
   set the M flag to a level that indicates whether or
   not the message's sequence number is the largest value that has been
   received from the MPL Seed.

The text from the draft seems to indicate that the M flag can be arbit= rarily set to zero, or set to the proper value indicating the state of the = forwarder.

The text is written to allow one to reduce MPL to a simple flood with = packet caching to avoid receiving a packet more than once.  In this ca= se, there is no real need to maintain the largest sequence number.

=97
Jonathan Hui

--_000_4BF07220E5D24BA7B141BBD70E071256ciscocom_-- From hrkermajani@entel.upc.edu Wed Feb 12 02:15:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCBF51A0917; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:15:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LRZ-WovTyk6P; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from violet.upc.es (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A811A0916; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:15:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by violet.upc.es (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s1CAFn0o018049; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:15:49 +0100 Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263DD2CBD0E; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:15:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from 147.83.113.90 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:15:49 +0100 Message-ID: <1dff04e761093e53f280601c57e17c48.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:15:49 +0100 From: "Hamidreza Kermajani" To: roll@ietf.org, lwip@ietf.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:55:42 by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:15:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Roll] Comments on draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-05 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 10:15:55 -0000 Dear Omprakash, WG list, We have reviewed draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-05, and we would like to share our comments: 1.- Section 3 states "In systems that cannot cancel the packets that are already in the queue, it is advisable to set the minimum interval to be much larger than the minimum link layer packet time." Could "much larger" be quantified? 2.- In section 5, the first sentence "If a node receives more DIOs than the redundancy constant..." should be changed a bit by a new sentence like: "If a node receives a number of DIOs greater than or equal to the redundancy constant..." 3.- In section 5, regarding the range proposed for the redundancy constant, i.e. 3-5: can this range be applied for any network density? For which network density has this range of redundancy constant values been tested? Thanks! Hamidreza Kermajani and Carles Gomez Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya From hrkermajani@entel.upc.edu Wed Feb 12 02:23:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA981A0917 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:23:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IynbZg7hPazM for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:23:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from violet.upc.es (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A651A090D for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:23:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by violet.upc.es (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s1CANebe020670 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:23:40 +0100 Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0B32CBD0E for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:23:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from 147.83.113.90 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:23:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:23:39 +0100 From: "Hamidreza Kermajani" To: roll@ietf.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:23:40 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Roll] Release announcement: RPL simulation code for OMNeT++ X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 10:23:43 -0000 Dear ROLL members, A RPL simulation code for OMNET++_4.3.1 using MiXiM_2.3 framework is available through the link below: https://sites.google.com/site/carlesgomez/home/code The code only supports upward routing, currently. DODAG Information Solicitation (DIS) messages are supported, and the Trickle algorithm is applied to the transmission of DIS messages. Trickle parameters used for DIS transmission are independent from those used for DIOs. OF0 is used as the objective function. Hope that you find my contribution useful. Greetings, Hamidreza Kermajani Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya From yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp Wed Feb 12 04:10:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449F11A082A for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:10:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.939 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H7wmHEeAeM8p for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:10:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from imx12.toshiba.co.jp (imx12.toshiba.co.jp [61.202.160.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E86C1A0803 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:10:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from arc11.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.90.127]) by imx12.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id s1CCAo6I023415; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:10:50 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by arc11.toshiba.co.jp id s1CCAo7Q009852; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:10:50 +0900 (JST) Received: from ovp11.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.90.148] by arc11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id XAA09851; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:10:50 +0900 Received: from mx.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id s1CCAoLF021766; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:10:50 +0900 (JST) Received: from tgxml345.toshiba.local by toshiba.co.jp id s1CCAosN023694; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:10:50 +0900 (JST) Received: from TGXML338.toshiba.local ([169.254.4.12]) by tgxml345.toshiba.local ([133.199.60.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:10:49 +0900 From: To: Thread-Topic: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration Thread-Index: AQHPJym8P5vLyN7B00KfP3lEbFA2LpqxhRGg Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:10:50 +0000 Message-ID: <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B2685B3F8@tgxml338.toshiba.local> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: ja-JP x-originating-ip: [133.199.18.94] msscp.transfermailtomossagent: 103 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B2685B3F8tgxml338toshiba_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 12:10:57 -0000 --_000_674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B2685B3F8tgxml338toshiba_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Since this allows MPL to cover a wide range of use cases without manually c= onfiguring the MPL parameters, I support the WG adopting this as a work ite= m. Yoshihiro Ohba From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ines Robles Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:04 PM To: roll Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration Hello, The authors of draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration have requested wg= adoption. See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configur= ation/ Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting thi= s as a work item. You are asked to indicate if you think that this is work= that the wg should be doing and whether this draft is an acceptable starti= ng point. Adding whether you can/will review or not is useful. Note that active support is required for adoption. Silence is a vote again= st adoption. This adoption call will end on Thrusday, March 6th. 2014, (with the presen= tation in London IETF 89). Thank you in advance, Kind Regards, Michael & Ines. --_000_674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B2685B3F8tgxml338toshiba_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Since this a= llows MPL to cover a wide range of use cases without manually configuring t= he MPL parameters, I support the WG adopting this as a work item.

 <= /o:p>

Yoshihiro Oh= ba

 <= /o:p>

 <= /o:p>

From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ines Robles
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:04 PM
To: roll
Cc: Michael Richardson
Subject: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-config= uration

 

Hello,

 

The authors = of draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration have requested wg adoption.
See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-ro= ll-mpl-parameter-configuration/

 

Please do respond to the list as to whether you s= upport the wg adopting this as a work item.  You are asked to indicate= if you think that this is work that the wg should be doing and whether this draft is an acceptable starting point.  Adding whether y= ou can/will review or not is useful.

Note that active support is required for adoption.  Silence is a vote = against adoption.

This adoption call will end on Thrusday,  March 6th. 2014, (with the p= resentation in London IETF 89).

 

Thank you in advance,=

 

Kind Regards,

 


Michael & Ines.

 

--_000_674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B2685B3F8tgxml338toshiba_-- From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Wed Feb 12 04:30:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03291A0824 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:30:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XgSGe6ZL6_v6 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x22b.google.com (mail-ve0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9AB1A070D for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id pa12so7225042veb.16 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:30:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=lalT2KlhFY2AqFVwxFRbDNZNGaKaT3XvNxgIqjG+Gpk=; b=Ub9reFW72vw3/HNjkC/IJObEOTSoj34eQlpZGRK+4qX1jLkc5GnHmfvXgQMLkxEvc/ yodVQzmMBZW1IRgTIa0GQcy5+b5Y5ZXoutD2HSWlGYlOsOMeKmHe7sw9rVpG3HLHSwKS //oYcvZ39kx5oPu3FRLpQlBue5Ocruki8X/Poz/WOTJOpPQSu1qcg3+tLSWJZ0WOhHYV uRGZRMOVMsQnmumfEZDokzzQTvBKjUvzf5BJTyV/DMYLh6g2Niklf/lI6MyaO0IgFUV9 3cCNsqO1/0todYb71AHK1cpXC0hOGsMhc7ksyu0G1ap71TsFNcA20iYhX5nXEJ3Rs3Ss 1AJw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.11.141 with SMTP id t13mr539165vct.30.1392208242136; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:30:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:30:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:30:42 -0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3c970b9de3304f234bdc5 Subject: Re: [Roll] Release announcement: RPL simulation code for OMNeT++ X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 12:30:44 -0000 --001a11c3c970b9de3304f234bdc5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Hamidreza, Thank you very much for share this simulation code with us. Kind Regards, Ines 2014-02-12 7:23 GMT-03:00 Hamidreza Kermajani : > Dear ROLL members, > > A RPL simulation code for OMNET++_4.3.1 using MiXiM_2.3 framework is > available through the link below: > > https://sites.google.com/site/carlesgomez/home/code > > The code only supports upward routing, currently. DODAG Information > Solicitation (DIS) messages are supported, and the Trickle algorithm is > applied to the transmission of DIS messages. Trickle parameters used for > DIS transmission are independent from those used for DIOs. OF0 is used as > the objective function. > > Hope that you find my contribution useful. > > Greetings, > > Hamidreza Kermajani > Universitat Polit=E8cnica de Catalunya > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > --001a11c3c970b9de3304f234bdc5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=A0Hamidreza,

<= /span>
Thank you very much for share this simulation code = with us.

Kind Regards,

Ines


2014-02= -12 7:23 GMT-03:00 Hamidreza Kermajani <hrkermajani@entel.upc.edu<= /a>>:
Dear ROLL members,

A RPL simulation code for OMNET++_4.3.1 using MiXiM_2.3 framework is
available through the link below:

https://sites.google.com/site/carlesgomez/home/code

The code only supports upward routing, currently. DODAG Information
Solicitation (DIS) messages are supported, and the Trickle algorithm is
applied to the transmission of DIS messages. Trickle parameters used for DIS transmission are independent from those used for DIOs. OF0 is used as the objective function.

Hope that you find my contribution useful.

Greetings,

Hamidreza Kermajani
Universitat Polit=E8cnica de Catalunya

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

--001a11c3c970b9de3304f234bdc5-- From robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Wed Feb 12 05:31:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC591A0086 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 05:31:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dZ8G1jIDfZ6u for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 05:31:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail41.extendcp.co.uk (mail41.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.44.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5456F1A00EE for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 05:31:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from host86-156-114-191.range86-156.btcentralplus.com ([86.156.114.191] helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mail41.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) id 1WDZun-0005HM-DX for roll@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:31:49 +0000 Message-ID: <52FB77C6.4020800@gridmerge.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:31:50 +0000 From: Robert Cragie Organization: Gridmerge Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: roll@ietf.org References: <20140124201637.988.3372.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4C62FB50-C8E8-4CEA-BD42-B64076883379@gmail.com> <0d753074c679b2f79f1ba4acb18cd7f3@xs4all.nl> <001AF5D9-5760-42D5-8BA9-4F421B39ACDA@axelcdv.com> <47541D76-F545-4088-A7D9-4D4E15061224@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <47541D76-F545-4088-A7D9-4D4E15061224@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms020707090803050803030704" X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com X-Extend-Src: mailout Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 13:31:54 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms020707090803050803030704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Isn't PROACTIVE_FORWARDING now a parameter per MPL Interface (based on=20 the contested statement mentioned below, i.e. "It is RECOMMENDED that=20 all MPL Interfaces ... use the same value for PROACTIVE)? Therefore=20 section 5.4 should just be SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME and there should be a = new section "MPL Interface Parameters" Other comments inline. Robert On 10/02/2014 2:03 PM, Jonathan Hui (johui) wrote: > Hi Axel, > > Thanks for your review and comments. See my comments below: > > On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Axel Colin de Verdi=E8re wrote: > >> I've reviewed the draft, and I have a couple comments/questions if tha= t's not too late: >> >> - I don't see why MPL forwarders on the same link should have the same= value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. It is now RECOMMENDED to make it so, but= I don't see the rationale for this recommendation: on the opposite, I th= ink it would allow some forwarders with less power restrictions to be mor= e proactive than others. > Good point. If there are no objections, I can remove this RECOMMENDED = statement. I agree it is not strictly necessary but there are certain combinations=20 of parameters which won't work. For example, if proactive forwarding is=20 used and the CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS is 0 then a MPL=20 Forwarder's MPL Interface which doesn't use proactive forwarding may=20 never forward a MPL Data Message on that interface as none of its=20 neighboring MPL Forwarders will be sending MPL Control Messages. I know Kerry had some concerns earlier regarding mutual exclusivity of=20 proactive and reactive forwarding strategies. Introduce the wider scope=20 through multiple interfaces and thus per-MPL Interface parameter sets=20 makes sense but it brings in a new concept of grouping a strategy across = a common set of MPL Interfaces to ensure forwarding applies correctly on = those MPL Interfaces. > >> - Isn't there a risk that only specifying SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME with= out any kind of hysteresis mechanism lead to old Data messages being rein= jected in the network? For example, if an MPL forwarder A resets its Cont= rol Message trickle timer with a seed (S) close to expiration, there is a= risk that a neighbor forwarder that has expired that seed interprets the= Control Message as A having new Data messages from seed S, thus resettin= g its timer for this seed and potentially retransmitting the correspondin= g Data message(s). > The hysteresis is controlled using the DATA/CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIR= ATIONS parameters. The SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME should be much longer tha= n these to help ensure that devices maintain state until the propagation = has completed. > >> - In section 9.2, it is unclear when the M flag should be cleared or s= et: why would it be arbitrarily cleared and not indicate whether or not t= his message's sequence number is the largest one received? > The M flag helps indicate whether a receiving node should reset its Tri= ckle timer. If the M flag is not set and the sequence number is lower th= an what is already known, there is no need to reset the Trickle timer. > > =97 > Jonathan Hui > >> Thank you, >> >> Axel >> >> Le 3 f=E9vr. 2014 =E0 11:23, peter van der Stok a= =E9crit : >> >>> I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues >>> raised during the WG last call concerning our applications, have been= addressed adequately. >>> >>> peter van der stok >>> >>> Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-01-27 16:58: >>>> I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06.txt. The issues I >>>> raised during the WG last call have been addressed and, in my opinio= n, >>>> the document is now ready for publication. >>>> - Ralph >>>> On Jan 24, 2014, at 3:16 PM 1/24/14, The IESG wrote: >>>>> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and= Lossy >>>>> networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: >>>>> - 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)' >>>>> as Proposed Standard >>>>> This is a second last call, the first one having been abandoned to = send >>>>> the document back to the working group. But the latest revision add= resses >>>>> comments that were received during the first last call. >>>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solici= ts >>>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to = the >>>>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-07. Exceptionally, comments = may be >>>>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >>>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>>>> 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 MP= L >>>>> 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 file can be obtained via >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ >>>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/ballo= t/ >>>>> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1858/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > --------------ms020707090803050803030704 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 Fw0xNDAyMTIxMzMxNTBaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBS4mgTzxHkLAWJ1cni91v3slHUBbjBs BgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcw DgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEo MIG5BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgaswgagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVy IE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1p dGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUg RW1haWwgQ0ECEFwxUNvELajLmHIeX9p072YwgbsGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGroIGoMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxm b3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhBcMVDbxC2oy5hyHl/adO9m MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAA4tI6g8Ib86hixMx89GQ0eCjxCLky6DYPkPdnK+9SJebS3s aammAGmbiqxrAwAzMzLL+fPw/+OYnGGc+KLFye2Jq2bb+Vgr35nTMjmzwr6HRLebhMkXmjaq 5fnST1K1iNGWGwo0Lx83lbmpa1kX4iCOzyct/bnSeCCo2TPZLrTGQHjE+61VllLlndgvUqM6 g3rk8ha7+GfoFav/4v0GR52ptGBtDZ7O87Ua+yce5HN8NkZRd2FJiKlGUd9Sh2ti1SFLiZyG QW2QmW4PnVyx2e4fEP6qb6n+0zQ/Wav7pG2mxlaFlSUBP3QvxvwHcu7iCLECPEeVQcJK8sbN U8qJKi8AAAAAAAA= --------------ms020707090803050803030704-- From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 08:28:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC0D91A09B4 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:28:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.027 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rCqyC3u29HgN for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:28:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B491A099C for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:28:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id va2so10812972obc.12 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:28:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Cmet6x0jV77t3iGhvSf/W1y6qi3wNb4RslJXiI5Cx98=; b=b4bIpg8M8uDAMJJuwZeE+j/vuW2GkfVk6Eb+/ceJRUwUbLV9SP2ci/vUXAxE8XUZLE IN/eofNXrdPyi6njrOWAW0x67Y+z5fj6OObU8RaGu+WE4mHV5XKgI0beaobnPM+1Cxyx +j0ovw5/OjLqvEQ1J7lZdKPXQeXsR5LI/y1s+qRPh15sv/YA4ITbpIkn34tTtlLF9C3N MEZtslEmHqHdk8WbimDA6zTBCxKmBHqAmjim80dD64R/p0QzJAnFb1ayoRX2qPAj+uG1 jqwD6oJ+1L4s2mz1CQe5MbQRKFlAXVqeSxLx346nZRxmt+Dm9/FkZvr417JE0pHmuY/h 1TSQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.135.194 with SMTP id pu2mr38040158obb.38.1392222507172; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:28:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.83.10 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:28:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:28:27 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0bRsHjnszRNHH0LMVj617uQq61E Message-ID: From: Kerry Lynn To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122a6c0fd0bd304f2380f44 Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 16:28:30 -0000 --089e0122a6c0fd0bd304f2380f44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I support wg adoption of this draft, based on the fact that roll is currently driving the MPL proposal. However, I will continue to observe that while MPL is a proposal that may solve the multicast problem for wireless mesh networks, its applicability is not limited to these networks. Regards, -K- On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Ines Robles wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Hello, The authors of draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration have > requested wg adoption.See: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/ > > Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting > this as a work item. You are asked to indicate if you think that this is > work that the wg should be doing and whether this draft is an acceptable > starting point. Adding whether you can/will review or not is useful. Note > that active support is required for adoption. Silence is a vote against > adoption.This adoption call will end on Thrusday, March 6th. 2014, (with > the presentation in London IETF 89). Thank you in advance, Kind Regards, > Michael & Ines.* > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --089e0122a6c0fd0bd304f2380f44 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I support wg adoption of this draft, based = on the fact that roll is currently
driving the MPL proposal.

Howe= ver, I will continue to observe that while MPL is a proposal that may
solve the multicast problem for wireless mesh networks, its applicabi= lity is
not limited to these networks.

Regards, -K-

=


On Tue,= Feb 11, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googl= email.com> wrote:

Hello,


The authors of draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuratio= n have requested wg adoption.

See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-config= uration/


Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg ad= opting this as a work item. =A0You are asked to indicate if you think that = this is work that the wg should be doing and whether this draft is an accep= table starting point. =A0Adding whether you can/will review or not is usefu= l.

Note that active support is required for adoption. =A0Silence is a vote= against adoption.

This adoption call will end on Thrusday, =A0March= 6th. 2014, (with the presentation in London IETF 89).


Thank you in advance,


Kind Regards,



Michael & Ines.


=

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


--089e0122a6c0fd0bd304f2380f44-- From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Feb 12 09:20:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16FB91A05FD for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:20:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lf_il--iOuRA for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6781A09A6 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:20:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44488 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WDdTs-00053F-8y; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:20:16 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:20:16 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/145#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.81f7b7f3369b1f44f007ed91609f02e0@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 145 In-Reply-To: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:20:38 -0000 #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08506.html From: Robert Cragie Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:31:50 +0000 Isn't PROACTIVE_FORWARDING now a parameter per MPL Interface (based on the contested statement mentioned below, i.e. "It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Interfaces ... use the same value for PROACTIVE)? Therefore section 5.4 should just be SEED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME and there should be a new section "MPL Interface Parameters" Other comments inline. Robert On 10/02/2014 2:03 PM, Jonathan Hui (johui) wrote: Hi Axel, >Thanks for your review and comments. See my comments below: >>On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Axel Colin de Verdière wrote: >>I've reviewed the draft, and I have a couple comments/questions if that's not too late: >>- I don't see why MPL forwarders on the same link should have the same value for >>PROACTIVE_FORWARDING. It is now RECOMMENDED to make it so, but I don't see the rationale for this >>recommendation: on the opposite, I think it would allow some forwarders with less power >>restrictions to be more proactive than others. >Good point. If there are no objections, I can remove this RECOMMENDED statement. I agree it is not strictly necessary but there are certain combinations of parameters which won't work. For example, if proactive forwarding is used and the CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS is 0 then a MPL Forwarder's MPL Interface which doesn't use proactive forwarding may never forward a MPL Data Message on that interface as none of its neighboring MPL Forwarders will be sending MPL Control Messages. I know Kerry had some concerns earlier regarding mutual exclusivity of proactive and reactive forwarding strategies. Introduce the wider scope through multiple interfaces and thus per-MPL Interface parameter sets makes sense but it brings in a new concept of grouping a strategy across a common set of MPL Interfaces to ensure forwarding applies correctly on those MPL Interfaces. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From hrkermajani@entel.upc.edu Wed Feb 12 01:20:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70251A08C3; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:20:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4HkiCI04FX4Y; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:20:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from dash.upc.es (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913561A08C8; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:20:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by dash.upc.es (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s1C9K7tH015222; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:20:08 +0100 Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83002CBD0E; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:20:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from 147.83.113.90 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:20:07 +0100 Message-ID: <150cc096da592cd8829f83c75f0a173d.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:20:07 +0100 From: "Hamidreza Kermajani" To: lwip@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd X-Greylist: ACL matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:20:08 +0100 (CET) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:24:40 -0800 Subject: [Roll] Comments on draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-05 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 09:20:14 -0000 Dear Omprakash, WG list, We have reviewed draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-05, and we would like to share our comments: 1.- Section 3 states "In systems that cannot cancel the packets that are already in the queue, it is advisable to set the minimum interval to be much larger than the minimum link layer packet time." Could "much larger" be quantified? 2.- In section 5, the first sentence "If a node receives more DIOs than the redundancy constant..." should be changed a bit by a new sentence like: "If a node receives a number of DIOs greater than or equal to the redundancy constant..." 3.- In section 5, regarding the range proposed for the redundancy constant, i.e. 3-5: can this range be applied for any network density? For which network density has this range of redundancy constant values been tested? Thanks! Hamidreza Kermajani and Carles Gomez Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Feb 12 12:41:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5721A03D6 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:41:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.009 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t2TdSbdhTIzo for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB9E1A06D5 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5292002A; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:58:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 19395647C9; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:40:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058DC647C8; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:40:59 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> 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: Ines Robles , "draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 20:41:02 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Abdussalam Baryun wrote: mcr> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Do we have a good enough problem statement? > Sorry I am not=C2=A0sure what is the statement? if, having read the document, you aren't sure what problem is being solved, then there might not be a good enough problem statement. Or, it may be obvious to everyone what problem we are solving, and there is isn't anything else to say. =2D- 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) iQCVAwUBUvvcWoqHRg3pndX9AQK51AP/d+9hoFmpGNgKt4oKnlvSCdQPCl/dF0cp wKFAN2jDAhmgcXtVUVl4vyempdQYI6pFBT2J3XGOtRkPwjVoTvRpDZDc5gtrIX1i NPerN2B3wqpJi+LbcdL1uldNCzx+eZ4+9DG/f5Uz4/oEKnUBu2ElK/eswyeilNwb u8g0xX5G+Hg= =17Se -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From cabo@tzi.org Wed Feb 12 12:46:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3523A1A0688 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:46:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmK4sdvC2E5R for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:46:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270991A0450 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:46:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1CKkl5u026917; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:46:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.101] (p54891979.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.25.121]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3AD95982; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:46:46 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:46:45 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org> References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: Ines Robles , draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 20:46:53 -0000 To me it seems a more viable course of action is to treat RPL's storing = modes as an interesting experimental protocol and focus on the = non-storing mode for deployment. If both (or all, as there are multiple storing modes) were actually = needed, the draft=92s contributions should be of great interest to = implementers. But that conclusion is of course just my perception: There may be this = one compelling application of storing mode outside research systems that = escaped me. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Feb 12 13:02:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3241A06D3 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:02:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.019 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c0jlQcay_4Wo for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:02:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98B81A06CE for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:02:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298632002A for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:19:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E4228647C9; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:02:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27E1647C8 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:02:23 -0500 (EST) 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] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 21:02:26 -0000 --=-=-= Kerry Lynn wrote: > However, I will continue to observe that while MPL is a proposal that may > solve the multicast problem for wireless mesh networks, its applicability is > not limited to these networks. 1) Do you have reason to believe that DHCPv6 may be the wrong tool for configuration in other uses? 2) do we need to have a second applicability statement. -- 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) iQCVAwUBUvvhX4qHRg3pndX9AQKF2gP/Rj3EL3XiC4PbotVDXwEFN4j94AICruXS ItAlx5J48JsiHtdDxyXi29mFthYx8F4CAkVm0cJeziYjwqrqkAjFBP2SD+a8/1SF tV5FfjxoZTRYTdK7JJfuhd6A5KX3YKdWqVtp1UtXMb+10RfrGBv3PMxYpg3V+sBo y36fWLMUxSs= =rPDP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 13:12:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E6F1A069B for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:12:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.027 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q4F5jbLx5EUc for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571431A0647 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id va2so11134465obc.40 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:12:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=mYiigFzWqDG4+gX5vrbO5gtlqzJ5T87NAXlRv1Qg5tE=; b=dbOAdKuGgHduyd5mQ6v7MZvF6GW2MpSMbCeprEhiWkDmrg2ewAxDujcKARi54QcilM GSJmJcd3lYz4cGaEgUsHVPga3y+d7ij2l5VMfD0l2fOpTQMEDLX6+Kd7bB/GrenmAgAT e//4IYcvbbQXkoLecpRw5B3JbB632ySU36qgGjhAt3fgNT7OLb5qSMLUgl4iRJTLKH4G u+6UVHOVsy+TotfU+O6YbzovtdldTJUeKaCVRArn4rNi8z0MyJhfpH01QaSKxU70FSjf fTL+Ts1TdZdI8hLMFeCVerL3WVSEllSf7JxlcurgSlCRJ09e9EIygDOwpraCf50D8Tkw +awA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.40.201 with SMTP id z9mr13744350obk.45.1392239557302; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:12:37 -0800 (PST) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.83.10 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:12:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <23277.1392238943@sandelman.ca> References: <23277.1392238943@sandelman.ca> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:12:37 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QHKO_4tyrOYcYTrI1ga3DndQ1vs Message-ID: From: Kerry Lynn To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33b024164bb04f23c0851 Subject: Re: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Feb 2014 21:12:40 -0000 --001a11c33b024164bb04f23c0851 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Kerry Lynn wrote: > > However, I will continue to observe that while MPL is a proposal > that may > > solve the multicast problem for wireless mesh networks, its > applicability is > > not limited to these networks. > > 1) Do you have reason to believe that DHCPv6 may be the wrong tool for > configuration in other uses? > > No; just saying, in an indirect way, that I agree this work belongs in roll so that it's part of the larger MPL discussion already taking place there. > 2) do we need to have a second applicability statement. > > No, the second paragraph of draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast, section 3 handles it nicely. Regards, -K- > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --001a11c33b024164bb04f23c0851 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Michael Richardson <= mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">

Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org> w= rote:
=A0 =A0 > However, I will continue to observe that while MPL is a propos= al that may
=A0 =A0 > solve the multicast problem for wireless mesh networks, its ap= plicability is
=A0 =A0 > not limited to these networks.

1) Do you have reason to believe that DHCPv6 may be the wrong tool fo= r
=A0 =A0configuration in other uses?

No; just saying, in an indirect way, that I agree thi= s work belongs in roll so that it's
part of the larger MP= L discussion already taking place there.
=A0
2) do we need to have a second applicability statement.

No, the second paragraph of draft-ietf-roll-trickle-m= cast, section 3 handles it nicely.

Regards, -K-
=A0
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@= sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair. =A0 =A0http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/<= /a>


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


--001a11c33b024164bb04f23c0851-- From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 17:53:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4296B1A00AB for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pjpCgUT6NPnD for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com (mail-qc0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4756A1A00BA for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id i17so16826384qcy.39 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vzINI6cSM58cbxbnhfJXQpHrtBGWas+PDpIszpWSEEk=; b=umO29gD38XUBnobCS1yXkstOwi/w9OFPwR2DrSr1asJN/QSsQt84h1m6sZ0QQL8AEL dPure/goz2wz2rBn6vdal8Eo9GNVN5xmXKfmZtLjfrXHvaIeUEFedWcTXSxO5vf84AK9 84mzYW+L/0MPVzKEI4XfaBKW2IrgQuDBMlrOo8MuoPpGxeLxDHQ2qEt75QM2wPA6pn2b cWoBmik/sTeUffQADZ0D1nZoeF0eTnp+RBVLG7tbJPKbtYPL2Z8iW9pFbWOeNUqfQAWB gQ6dVUP6zW3axGagMK2DjW9nFYCl5pdWnm7zSjIehbire5lUP5qU5kDuuNrPlCAg0akX WI+w== X-Received: by 10.140.88.112 with SMTP id s103mr70033469qgd.47.1392256432153; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.86.245.68] (198-135-0-233.cisco.com. [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k1sm784101qat.16.2014.02.12.17.53.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:49 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <92131c112cc511e6fdac094b533e27fe@xs4all.nl> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:53:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1F9FDE35-D959-46EB-A318-00A6897BCB38@gmail.com> References: <92131c112cc511e6fdac094b533e27fe@xs4all.nl> To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, peter van der Stok X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-MIB X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 13 Feb 2014 01:53:55 -0000 On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:19 AM 2/10/14, peter van der Stok = wrote: > The expectation is that MPL is used where RPL is used as well. >=20 > Otherwise a second document is suggested. I think separate MIBs would be the appropriate architecture as MPL and = RPL are separate protocols and may be deployed independently. - Ralph >=20 > Peter >=20 > Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-02-09 14:33: >> On Feb 7, 2014, at 5:31 AM 2/7/14, peter van der Stok >> wrote: >>> Dear authors, >>> Is it possible to extend the RPL MIB with MPL parameters? >> Why would MPL parameters be added to the RPL MIB? MPL and RPL share >> very little, if any, protocol or operational considerations. >> - Ralph >>> Easy suggestions are per interface the parameters: >>> DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN, DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX, = DATA_MESSAGE_K,DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS >>> CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMIN, CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMAX, = CONTROL_MESSAGE_K,CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS >>> per interface: the enabled MC addresses. >>> Measured values per seed and MC address: low seq nr, high seq nr >>> the number of messages received, number of messages repeated, number = of messages rejected because c>k. >>> Looking forward to your reply, >>> Peter >>> -- >>> Peter van der Stok >>> mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Roll mailing list >>> Roll@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From stokcons@xs4all.nl Thu Feb 13 00:13:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B6A1A016D for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:13:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bzcumqr3p7LA for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:13:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9060B1A016E for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:13:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube9.xs4all.net [194.109.20.207]) by smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s1D8DBcl038610; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:13:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl) Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-61-203.w86-202.abo.wanadoo.fr ([86.202.196.203]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:13:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:13:11 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: Ralph Droms Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: <1F9FDE35-D959-46EB-A318-00A6897BCB38@gmail.com> References: <92131c112cc511e6fdac094b533e27fe@xs4all.nl> <1F9FDE35-D959-46EB-A318-00A6897BCB38@gmail.com> Message-ID: <17b605c99a75523aa7ca7ff7a9858c24@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (T/DIVfmCJR0uxlPu+lneqvWkOQ7Phua1) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-MIB X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, 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, 13 Feb 2014 08:13:23 -0000 Hi Ralph, thanks for your opinion on this. I was hoping to minimize work, but you are probably right. I will discuss with Juergen. Peter Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-02-13 02:53: > On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:19 AM 2/10/14, peter van der Stok > wrote: > >> The expectation is that MPL is used where RPL is used as well. >> >> Otherwise a second document is suggested. > > I think separate MIBs would be the appropriate architecture as MPL and > RPL are separate protocols and may be deployed independently. > > - Ralph > >> >> Peter >> >> Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-02-09 14:33: >>> On Feb 7, 2014, at 5:31 AM 2/7/14, peter van der Stok >>> wrote: >>>> Dear authors, >>>> Is it possible to extend the RPL MIB with MPL parameters? >>> Why would MPL parameters be added to the RPL MIB? MPL and RPL share >>> very little, if any, protocol or operational considerations. >>> - Ralph >>>> Easy suggestions are per interface the parameters: >>>> DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN, DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX, >>>> DATA_MESSAGE_K,DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS >>>> CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMIN, CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMAX, >>>> CONTROL_MESSAGE_K,CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS >>>> per interface: the enabled MC addresses. >>>> Measured values per seed and MC address: low seq nr, high seq nr >>>> the number of messages received, number of messages repeated, number >>>> of messages rejected because c>k. >>>> Looking forward to your reply, >>>> Peter >>>> -- >>>> Peter van der Stok >>>> mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Roll mailing list >>>> Roll@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Feb 13 01:17:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFA81A00FA; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:17:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AOU4XoSEH9yG; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:17:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB271A01B5; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:17:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.0.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140213091719.21830.13428.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:17:19 -0800 Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-02.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 13 Feb 2014 09:17:27 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. 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 Authors : Anders Brandt Emmanuel Baccelli Robert Cragie Peter van der Stok Filename : draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-02.txt Pages : 24 Date : 2014-02-13 Abstract: The purpose of this document is to provide guidance in the selection and use of RPL protocols to implement the features required for control 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-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-02 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 abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Thu Feb 13 03:34:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9AE1A01F2 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:34:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8m-9zFpI7iCr for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:34:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yh0-x230.google.com (mail-yh0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4168F1A01EA for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:34:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yh0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f10so9776079yha.7 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:34:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=3STRYFnp2K8FKP385XP4LFlXtpaRPCLKldI9tsYk8mY=; b=o7YW9RQae/0Bk80q9MjtrfavqW8XsQDnD9SOc80u/65Kqzm4f/irxDwFpK9QO6kKSx ZyJFDWXin6jhfCayn0gsCtlc7kiKLW2ioZ3SvdzDMk5IvuBwfsBhmle1HWBFDi0TSbdM yJeeGP4EFJ+hvpP57jFzddHD40j72ob5UjWRnIxbx8Jl2fzfOv0h1SP4L2NhCd7m+UGX kZR8gnThe12tB4hvMxxsZTK4zUpAVjm56D1VjoY2ox49o2KiBNqLUOCHFhD0uIsC6MEI CDIA09yoz3yy2lm1oe4prt9B1x4vK1poKfmU/LDy8uHnYORirKLgkHrUX660n3sZhDiT a0ag== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.32.36 with SMTP id n24mr117504yha.116.1392291276957; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:34:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.170.222.3 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:34:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <18342.1392237659@sandelman.ca> References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> <18342.1392237659@sandelman.ca> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:34:36 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 13 Feb 2014 11:34:40 -0000 I am sorry for my misunderstandning, but I ment is the question related to WG recharter, as recharter problem statement, or did you mean the draft only. I understood it as the WG recharter problem statement, so I want to know what is it, or where is it to read. AB On 2/12/14, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > mcr> Do we have a good enough problem statement? > > > Sorry I am not sure what is the statement? > > if, having read the document, you aren't sure what problem is being solved, > then there might not be a good enough problem statement. Or, it may be > obvious to everyone what problem we are solving, and there is isn't > anything > else to say. > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > From nobody Thu Feb 13 09:33:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676181A02CF for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:33:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.439 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WG061YMCWMNg for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:33:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1791A02C5 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:33:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89CC2003F; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:50:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 9B45A647C9; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:33:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B9B647C8; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:33:10 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org> References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.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 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/archive/details/roll/Zr6mOHJngkI7Zn66LSa1z0k7MBc Cc: Ines Robles , draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 13 Feb 2014 17:33:16 -0000 --=-=-= Carsten Bormann wrote: > To me it seems a more viable course of action is to treat RPL's storing > modes as an interesting experimental protocol and focus on the > non-storing mode for deployment. people whose equipment has power, and are therefore not as limited in the footprint of their code, prefer storing mode as it reduces the distance of the some traffic, and maximizes the bandwidth available. The metering people (AMI) specified storing mode in the applicability statement. Traffic distance doesn't matter as it's almost all p2mp. I understand your statement to be disinterest in new partial storing modes. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting for hire =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUv0B1oqHRg3pndX9AQLRGQQAhkAniFLFtZXZ1w8s1sF4A6RA3P4UO8Dl +wQ6fQ1vrsKtCQ1M1mWGymTQMn5KjzbKS5f4utWVO6VTgnM4zp2hfgPY9H1jhJYa t1JTgmU4qmlMsRn0J/r86FgjgD1cGt+brnJK7MsYh7ivgZgIwObtwjQq5p+pOKJL NpM4IJUlxUc= =PVyA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Thu Feb 13 12:36:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F135B1A04E8 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:36:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id osSYgdO8XyDb for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E691A045B for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:36:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1DKaBbE005591; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:36:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.101] (p548904E0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.4.224]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DCDCFEF; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:36:10 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <19014.1392312790@sandelman.ca> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:36:08 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org> <19014.1392312790@sandelman.ca> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/_R88KY3rakraxzMiZyvZzxWEh0s Cc: Ines Robles , draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 13 Feb 2014 20:36:21 -0000 Well, > The metering people (AMI) specified storing mode in the applicability > statement. Traffic distance doesn't matter as it's almost all p2mp. It=92s easy to =93leave the door open=94 in an applicability statement. (BTW, is that document alive? I haven=92t been paying attention.) I would be more interested in hearing about people who actually build = things that way. > I understand your statement to be disinterest in new partial storing = modes. No, I find the problem intriguing. It just seems to me that storing = mode isn=92t actually being used outside research. If a hybrid mode could make the introduction of storing nodes a more = useful proposition, that would be an interesting result of this work. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From nobody Thu Feb 13 14:17:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5761A045B for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:17:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fL72GYB98i3P for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:17:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0239.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.239]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE491A0009 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:17:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from CO1PR04MB554.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.17) by CO1PR04MB459.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.72.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.878.16; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:17:44 +0000 Received: from CO1PR04MB553.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.12) by CO1PR04MB554.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.878.16; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:17:42 +0000 Received: from CO1PR04MB553.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.138]) by CO1PR04MB553.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.138]) with mapi id 15.00.0878.008; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:17:42 +0000 From: "Gillmore, Matthew" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Thread-Index: AQHPJ2Dvptn9QlHnBEGPMHibJ6EWMJqyGFOAgAFcPgCAADMfAIAAG23w Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:17:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org> <19014.1392312790@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [38.121.36.2] x-forefront-prvs: 0121F24F22 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019001)(6009001)(13464003)(199002)(189002)(377454003)(81342001)(90146001)(65816001)(2656002)(92566001)(86362001)(81542001)(56816005)(81816001)(81686001)(85852003)(83072002)(66066001)(80022001)(93136001)(33646001)(94946001)(93516002)(79102001)(63696002)(74706001)(83322001)(74366001)(80976001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(77096001)(4396001)(76796001)(31966008)(85306002)(47446002)(74502001)(74662001)(69226001)(87266001)(76576001)(47736001)(49866001)(47976001)(76786001)(50986001)(59766001)(95416001)(53806001)(77982001)(46102001)(51856001)(74876001)(87936001)(54356001)(95666001)(76482001)(15975445006)(54316002)(74316001)(94316002)(56776001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR04MB554; H:CO1PR04MB553.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:38.121.36.2; FPR:B428C175.9F3797DA.91FCBD7B.4261DE61.20287; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: itron.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/ILPn0kA0SiXLZXjc8YQru4KOGxw Cc: Ines Robles , "draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 13 Feb 2014 22:17:51 -0000 I agree with Carsten, a solution for a hybrid of storing mode and non-stor= ing mode is very interesting. Matthew Gillmore Strategic Standards Architect, Office of the CTO Mobile: +1.517.745.7350 Knowledge to Shape Your Future =A0 =A0 =A0=20 -----Original Message----- From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:36 PM To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Cc: Ines Robles; draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Well, > The metering people (AMI) specified storing mode in the applicability=20 > statement. Traffic distance doesn't matter as it's almost all p2mp. It's easy to "leave the door open" in an applicability statement. (BTW, is that document alive? I haven't been paying attention.) I would be more interested in hearing about people who actually build thing= s that way. > I understand your statement to be disinterest in new partial storing mode= s. No, I find the problem intriguing. It just seems to me that storing mode i= sn't actually being used outside research. If a hybrid mode could make the introduction of storing nodes a more useful= proposition, that would be an interesting result of this work. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From nobody Thu Feb 13 14:45:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27E31A0079 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:45:14 -0800 (PST) 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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id axoCd9PK0Nwu for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:45:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 138A21A0485 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:45:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id kl14so11408072pab.15 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:45:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nKcJXEKWSg1wTkn04wlukq/csWCX//GTwbfN4i4vPkE=; b=jja5KONc09Ky7rUE953kuVmaGL0ZOjs36L1k6orZbeD5ce5NA9JSqrh7xNZB9WmOc4 VkgxZNpkuTcd33N8a6O4FecgdaUDD+vBwUa5Jr4nWt8UtBGhnbxhHQPS2zA22+/M0zfY +ZI/hw1cNLo3L43eNDNBQ1jLG5ffNq8H0T4/k3YUk1zHzTdGWvgDDE90fO2JulbYbP1k x/i7KA2UuGKo6wwH0oBfYHonAdSOUtjlG7m60EZ400mUCaBl3l4juwPTtlJAajaD79ra bLJ3l34SQjBg8ZWeiPi17XN3d2o1ObkO2F6Ga9d5L9Kec8ugzagsBRVXZjXgamxnK6uh szkw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.149.231 with SMTP id ud7mr4888005pab.8.1392331507751; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:45:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.0.104 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:45:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org> <19014.1392312790@sandelman.ca> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 23:45:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d95d0ede24e04f25170ea Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/n3Cd-oqnzI3nQ7LrPbpAuufWEFA Cc: Ines Robles , "draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 13 Feb 2014 22:45:14 -0000 --047d7b6d95d0ede24e04f25170ea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thursday, February 13, 2014, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > > > I understand your statement to be disinterest in new partial storing > modes. > > No, I find the problem intriguing. It just seems to me that storing mode > isn't actually being used outside research. > If a hybrid mode could make the introduction of storing nodes a more > useful proposition, that would be an interesting result of this work. There is an interesting problem. I agree that the solution of the draft may not be interesting but the hybrid modes can be. I think of the solution is to provide a protocol of node ability which I discussed before (my work in progress draft) within the network to help RPL within network of mix nodes capabilities. AB --047d7b6d95d0ede24e04f25170ea Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thursday, February 13, 2014, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> I understand your statement to be disinterest in new partial storing m= odes.

No, I find the problem intriguing.  It just seems to me that storing m= ode isn’t actually being used outside research.
If a hybrid mode could make the introduction of storing nodes a more useful= proposition, that would be an interesting result of this work.

There is an interesting problem. I agree that the= solution of the draft may not  be interesting but the hybri= d modes can be.  I think of the solution is to provide a pro= tocol of node ability which I discussed before (my work in progre= ss draft) within the network to help RPL within network of mix no= des capabilities. 

AB


--047d7b6d95d0ede24e04f25170ea-- From nobody Thu Feb 13 21:08:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479611A00E2 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:08:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2tvJvKVvZ5_0 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:08:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpeg.etri.re.kr (smtpeg2.etri.re.kr [129.254.27.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F8F1A00CF for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:08:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from SMTP2.etri.info (129.254.28.72) by SMTPEG2.etri.info (129.254.27.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:08:42 +0900 Received: from SMTP4.etri.info ([169.254.3.218]) by SMTP2.etri.info ([169.254.170.108]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:08:40 +0900 From: =?utf-8?B?7KCV7KKF7IiY?= To: "Gillmore, Matthew" Thread-Topic: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Thread-Index: AQHPJ2DU+SETlneSuUOfkUqMCXHQR5qxgXOAgAFcPwCAADMfAIAAHGAAgABy0AA= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:08:39 +0000 Message-ID: References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org> <19014.1392312790@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: ko-KR, en-US Content-Language: ko-KR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [129.254.192.201] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <4F2E4144F7DCC647A263966B5E6324C2@etri.re.kr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/j4JmHZpVUO6GUzt2P46v7Wyf3ls Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Ines Robles , "draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 14 Feb 2014 05:08:46 -0000 VGhhbmtzIGZvciB5b3VyIGludGVyZXN0cy4NCg0KSSBhbHNvIHdvbmRlciB0aGUgbWV0aG9kIGZv ciBtaXhpbmcgc3RvcmluZyBhbmQgbm9uLXN0b3JpbmcgbW9kZXMgdGhhdCB3ZSBkZXNjcmliZWQg aW4gdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGlzIGZlYXNpYmxlIG9yIG5vdC4NCldlIHN1Z2dlc3RlZCBhIG5ldyBNT1Ag dGhhdCByZXF1aXJlcyBhIGZldyBtaW5vciBjaGFuZ2VzIGZyb20gZXhpc3Rpbmcgc3RvcmluZyBt b2RlIGFuZCBub24tc3RvcmluZyBtb2RlLg0KDQpUaGFua3MuDQotSm9uZ3Nvbw0KDQpPbiBGZWIg MTQsIDIwMTQsIGF0IDc6MTcgQU0sIEdpbGxtb3JlLCBNYXR0aGV3IDxNYXR0aGV3LkdpbGxtb3Jl QGl0cm9uLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj4gDQo+IEkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBDYXJzdGVuLCAgYSBzb2x1 dGlvbiBmb3IgYSBoeWJyaWQgb2Ygc3RvcmluZyBtb2RlIGFuZCBub24tc3RvcmluZyBtb2RlIGlz IHZlcnkgaW50ZXJlc3RpbmcuDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBNYXR0aGV3IEdpbGxtb3JlDQo+ IFN0cmF0ZWdpYyBTdGFuZGFyZHMgQXJjaGl0ZWN0LCBPZmZpY2Ugb2YgdGhlIENUTw0KPiBNb2Jp bGU6ICsxLjUxNy43NDUuNzM1MA0KPiBLbm93bGVkZ2UgdG8gU2hhcGUgWW91ciBGdXR1cmUNCj4g ICAgICAgDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206 IFJvbGwgW21haWx0bzpyb2xsLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBDYXJzdGVu IEJvcm1hbm4NCj4gU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXksIEZlYnJ1YXJ5IDEzLCAyMDE0IDM6MzYgUE0NCj4g VG86IFJvdXRpbmcgT3ZlciBMb3cgcG93ZXIgYW5kIExvc3N5IG5ldHdvcmtzDQo+IENjOiBJbmVz IFJvYmxlczsgZHJhZnQta28tcm9sbC1taXgtbmV0d29yay1wYXRob2xvZ3lAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5v cmcNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtSb2xsXSBpbnRlcmVzdCBpbiBtaXhlZCBuZXR3b3JrIHRvcG9s b2d5DQo+IA0KPiBXZWxsLA0KPiANCj4+IFRoZSBtZXRlcmluZyBwZW9wbGUgKEFNSSkgc3BlY2lm aWVkIHN0b3JpbmcgbW9kZSBpbiB0aGUgYXBwbGljYWJpbGl0eSANCj4+IHN0YXRlbWVudC4gIFRy YWZmaWMgZGlzdGFuY2UgZG9lc24ndCBtYXR0ZXIgYXMgaXQncyBhbG1vc3QgYWxsIHAybXAuDQo+ IA0KPiBJdCdzIGVhc3kgdG8gImxlYXZlIHRoZSBkb29yIG9wZW4iIGluIGFuIGFwcGxpY2FiaWxp dHkgc3RhdGVtZW50Lg0KPiAoQlRXLCBpcyB0aGF0IGRvY3VtZW50IGFsaXZlPyAgSSBoYXZlbid0 IGJlZW4gcGF5aW5nIGF0dGVudGlvbi4pDQo+IA0KPiBJIHdvdWxkIGJlIG1vcmUgaW50ZXJlc3Rl ZCBpbiBoZWFyaW5nIGFib3V0IHBlb3BsZSB3aG8gYWN0dWFsbHkgYnVpbGQgdGhpbmdzIHRoYXQg d2F5Lg0KPiANCj4+IEkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCB5b3VyIHN0YXRlbWVudCB0byBiZSBkaXNpbnRlcmVz dCBpbiBuZXcgcGFydGlhbCBzdG9yaW5nIG1vZGVzLg0KPiANCj4gTm8sIEkgZmluZCB0aGUgcHJv YmxlbSBpbnRyaWd1aW5nLiAgSXQganVzdCBzZWVtcyB0byBtZSB0aGF0IHN0b3JpbmcgbW9kZSBp c24ndCBhY3R1YWxseSBiZWluZyB1c2VkIG91dHNpZGUgcmVzZWFyY2guDQo+IElmIGEgaHlicmlk IG1vZGUgY291bGQgbWFrZSB0aGUgaW50cm9kdWN0aW9uIG9mIHN0b3Jpbmcgbm9kZXMgYSBtb3Jl IHVzZWZ1bCBwcm9wb3NpdGlvbiwgdGhhdCB3b3VsZCBiZSBhbiBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyByZXN1bHQg b2YgdGhpcyB3b3JrLg0KPiANCj4gR3LDvMOfZSwgQ2Fyc3Rlbg0KPiANCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gUm9sbCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QN Cj4gUm9sbEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZv L3JvbGwNCg0K From nobody Thu Feb 13 21:36:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5FC41A00E4 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:36:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.948 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6I-vKtis6BFm for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:36:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpeg.etri.re.kr (smtpeg1.etri.re.kr [129.254.27.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF741A00B9 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:36:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from SMTP3.etri.info (129.254.28.73) by SMTPEG1.etri.info (129.254.27.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:36:37 +0900 Received: from SMTP4.etri.info ([169.254.3.218]) by SMTP3.etri.info ([169.254.157.203]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:36:41 +0900 From: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?waTBvrz2?= To: Abdussalam Baryun Thread-Topic: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Thread-Index: AQHPJ2DU+SETlneSuUOfkUqMCXHQR5qxgXOAgAFcPwCAADMfAIAAJAmAgABy/QA= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:36:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org> <19014.1392312790@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: ko-KR, en-US Content-Language: ko-KR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [129.254.192.201] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BFFA224C269D477C92D28B98DC668C69etrirekr_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/6V6ULhthSrn5IX5LFQ3_pC2irNM Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Ines Robles , "draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 14 Feb 2014 05:36:45 -0000 --_000_BFFA224C269D477C92D28B98DC668C69etrirekr_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgQWJkdXNzYWxhbSwNCg0KRXhjaGFuZ2luZyBub2RlIGFiaWxpdGllcyB3aXRoIGVhY2ggb3Ro ZXIgbWF5IGVuaGFuY2UgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UuIEJ1dCBJIHRoaW5rIGhvdyBpdCBjYW4gZW5oYW5j ZSBpcyBub3QgY2xlYXIuDQpJIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgdGhlIFJQTKGvcyBNT1AgYWR2ZXJ0aXNlbWVu dCBtZWNoYW5pc20gaXMgZW5vdWdoIHRvIGNvbnN0cnVjdCBuZXR3b3Jrcy4NCg0KVGhhbmsgeW91 IGZvciB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnQuDQotSm9uZ3Nvbw0KDQpPbiBGZWIgMTQsIDIwMTQsIGF0IDc6NDUg QU0sIEFiZHVzc2FsYW0gQmFyeXVuIDxhYmR1c3NhbGFtYmFyeXVuQGdtYWlsLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86 YWJkdXNzYWxhbWJhcnl1bkBnbWFpbC5jb20+PiB3cm90ZToNCg0KDQpPbiBUaHVyc2RheSwgRmVi cnVhcnkgMTMsIDIwMTQsIENhcnN0ZW4gQm9ybWFubiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQg eW91ciBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgdG8gYmUgZGlzaW50ZXJlc3QgaW4gbmV3IHBhcnRpYWwgc3RvcmluZyBt b2Rlcy4NCg0KTm8sIEkgZmluZCB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBpbnRyaWd1aW5nLiAgSXQganVzdCBzZWVt cyB0byBtZSB0aGF0IHN0b3JpbmcgbW9kZSBpc26hr3QgYWN0dWFsbHkgYmVpbmcgdXNlZCBvdXRz aWRlIHJlc2VhcmNoLg0KSWYgYSBoeWJyaWQgbW9kZSBjb3VsZCBtYWtlIHRoZSBpbnRyb2R1Y3Rp b24gb2Ygc3RvcmluZyBub2RlcyBhIG1vcmUgdXNlZnVsIHByb3Bvc2l0aW9uLCB0aGF0IHdvdWxk IGJlIGFuIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHJlc3VsdCBvZiB0aGlzIHdvcmsuDQoNClRoZXJlIGlzIGFuIGlu dGVyZXN0aW5nIHByb2JsZW0uIEkgYWdyZWUgdGhhdCB0aGUgc29sdXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGRyYWZ0 IG1heSBub3QgIGJlIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIGJ1dCB0aGUgaHlicmlkIG1vZGVzIGNhbiBiZS4gIEkg dGhpbmsgb2YgdGhlIHNvbHV0aW9uIGlzIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgYSBwcm90b2NvbCBvZiBub2RlIGFi aWxpdHkgd2hpY2ggSSBkaXNjdXNzZWQgYmVmb3JlIChteSB3b3JrIGluIHByb2dyZXNzIGRyYWZ0 KSB3aXRoaW4gdGhlIG5ldHdvcmsgdG8gaGVscCBSUEwgd2l0aGluIG5ldHdvcmsgb2YgbWl4IG5v ZGVzIGNhcGFiaWxpdGllcy4NCg0KQUINCg0KDQoNCg== --_000_BFFA224C269D477C92D28B98DC668C69etrirekr_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-ID: <812A1F9CD4C86548A8DF7990716567B2@etri.re.kr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Abdussalam,

Exchanging node abilities with each other may enhance performance. But= I think how it can enhance is not clear.
I think that the RPL=A1=AFs MOP advertisement mechanism is enough to c= onstruct networks.

Thank you for your comment.
-Jongsoo

On Feb 14, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:


On Thursday, February 13, 2014, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> I understand your statement to be disinterest in new partial storing m= odes.

No, I find the problem intriguing.  It just seems to me that storing m= ode isn=A1=AFt actually being used outside research.
If a hybrid mode could make the introduction of storing nodes a more useful= proposition, that would be an interesting result of this work.

There is an interesting problem. I agree that the solution of the= draft may not  be interesting but the hybrid modes can= be.  I think of the solution is to provide a protocol of node ab= ility which I discussed before (my work in progress draft) w= ithin the network to help RPL within network of mix nodes capabilities. 

AB



--_000_BFFA224C269D477C92D28B98DC668C69etrirekr_-- From nobody Fri Feb 14 01:47:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2C41A00C0 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 01:47:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.24 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H26YcK9oBNnn for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 01:47:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from imx2.toshiba.co.jp (inet-tsb5.toshiba.co.jp [202.33.96.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668501A0112 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 01:47:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from arc1.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.194.235]) by imx2.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id s1E9lW7Z021306 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:47:32 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by arc1.toshiba.co.jp id s1E9lWPo020367 for roll@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:47:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from unknown [133.199.192.144] by arc1.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id UAA20365; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:47:32 +0900 Received: from mx11.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp2.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id s1E9lV8m008742 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:47:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id s1E9lVE0000347; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:47:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from [133.199.17.105] (ivpn-2-105.mobile.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.17.105]) by spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6266597D38 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:47:31 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <52FDE632.1090905@toshiba.co.jp> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:47:30 +0900 From: Yusuke DOI User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/afiWQCvg7Cj36gsOG2npMcCiq-4 Subject: [Roll] updated draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 14 Feb 2014 09:47:38 -0000 Hi, I just updated the MPL option draft to satisfy DHC wg guideline. In addition, I also loosen 'no update' restriction on MPL parameters. > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : MPL Parameter Configuration Option for DHCPv6 > Authors : Yusuke Doi > Matthew Gillmore > Filename : draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-04.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2014-02-13 -- // Yusuke DOI From nobody Fri Feb 14 05:13:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54E01A0209; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:13:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TuFq8kce85xW; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:13:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8805F1A01D6; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:13:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3778; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392383600; x=1393593200; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Ed5uffNxfXJjVjzvhnDlN9BrdmMNpZxli9VG1sYCrkA=; b=mp8u8JyLgc8amzmuuTrRfjkinQEMxKJXhXT3mQtiwZRt2s+7SRzFlkpb e3iA4Ool7GhYJ1aNzq283Wqm5P95DZXqLcgej1U/+6u4vTvmXMfRKXqIs m0bQYxYVQf9/tt0/B8ZD+jVu7sPTQVdDtJDsPkhymZy6sl1adg2r5hUMx k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FACwW/lKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgwg4TwaDA7ltGIEDFgF0g30BAQEEIxE6CQIMBgEIEQQBAQMCBh0DAgQwFAEGAQEFBAEEDgUIARKHaQgFpnaaAheBKY0RJzENgmg1gRMElDOFE5BkgyuBaEI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,844,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="301082137" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2014 13:13:14 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1EDDEYF002565 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:13:14 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.57]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:13:14 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-01.txt Thread-Index: Ac8phlrnHT3Ku1tPR86IM3CQX+8c8Q== Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:13:13 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:13:00 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/JZUSDxjjmX7CkYfDJQJwiUJpTA0 Cc: roll , "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org> Subject: [Roll] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-01.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 14 Feb 2014 13:13:23 -0000 RGVhciBhbGwsDQoNCkluIHRoZSBsaWdodCBvZiByZWNlbnQgZXhjaGFuZ2VzIG9uIHRoZSBST0xM IGFuZCA2VGlTQ0ggbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0cywgSSBzdWdnZXN0IHdlIGZvY3VzIGRpc2N1c3Npb25z IG9uIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgb24gdGhlIDZsbyBNTC4NCkNvbnNpZGVyaW5nIHRoYXQgd2UgYXJlIGdl dHRpbmcgZWZmZWN0aXZlIGNvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiBpbmRpY2F0aW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlIGVuZC10by1l bmQgQVJRIGlzIGVmZmVjdGl2ZWx5IG5lZWRlZCwgSSBkZWNpZGVkIHRvIHJlcHVibGlzaCB0byBy ZWJvb3QgdGhlIHdvcmsuDQpPbmNlIHdlIGdldCBwYXN0IHRoZSAiaXMgaXQgcmVhbGx5IG5lZWRl ZCIgcXVlc3Rpb24sIHRoZSBuZXh0IGZhaXIgcXVlc3Rpb24gaXMgd2hldGhlciB0aGUgcHJvcG9z ZWQgbWVjaGFuaXNtIGlzIGFkYXB0ZWQgYW5kIHRvIGV2YWx1YXRlIGV2ZW50dWFsIGFsdGVybmF0 ZXMuIA0KDQpJZiB5b3UgYWdyZWUgdGhhdCB3ZSBuZWVkIGZyYWdtZW50IGZvcndhcmRpbmcgYW5k IHJlY292ZXJ5ICpwbGVhc2Ugc2hpbWUgaW4qLg0KSWYgeW91IGFyZSB3aWxsaW5nIHRvIHNwZW5k IGVmZmVjdGl2ZSB0aW1lIG9uIGl0IGFuZCBjb250cmlidXRlIHRvIHRoZSBzb2x1dGlvbiwgKnBs ZWFzZSBzaGltZSBpbiouDQpJbiBhbnkgY2FzZSwgcGxlYXNlIGNjIHRoZSA2bG8gbWFpbGluZyBs aXN0ICpvbmx5Ki4NCg0KQ2hlZXJzLA0KDQpQYXNjYWwNCg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3Nh Z2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86aW50ZXJuZXQt ZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnXSANClNlbnQ6IHZlbmRyZWRpIDE0IGbDqXZyaWVyIDIwMTQgMTQ6MDUN ClRvOiBKb25hdGhhbiBIdWkgKGpvaHVpKTsgUGFzY2FsIFRodWJlcnQgKHB0aHViZXJ0KTsgSm9u YXRoYW4gSHVpIChqb2h1aSk7IFBhc2NhbCBUaHViZXJ0IChwdGh1YmVydCkNClN1YmplY3Q6IE5l dyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgZHJhZnQtdGh1YmVydC02bG8tZm9yd2FyZGluZy1m cmFnbWVudHMtMDEudHh0DQoNCg0KQSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LXRodWJlcnQt NmxvLWZvcndhcmRpbmctZnJhZ21lbnRzLTAxLnR4dA0KaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHN1 Ym1pdHRlZCBieSBQYXNjYWwgVGh1YmVydCBhbmQgcG9zdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBJRVRGIHJlcG9zaXRv cnkuDQoNCk5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC10aHViZXJ0LTZsby1mb3J3YXJkaW5nLWZyYWdtZW50cw0KUmV2 aXNpb246CTAxDQpUaXRsZToJCUxMTiBGcmFnbWVudCBGb3J3YXJkaW5nIGFuZCBSZWNvdmVyeQ0K RG9jdW1lbnQgZGF0ZToJMjAxNC0wMi0xNA0KR3JvdXA6CQlJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24N ClBhZ2VzOgkJMTQNClVSTDogICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0 LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC10aHViZXJ0LTZsby1mb3J3YXJkaW5nLWZyYWdtZW50cy0wMS50eHQNClN0 YXR1czogICAgICAgICBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC10aHVi ZXJ0LTZsby1mb3J3YXJkaW5nLWZyYWdtZW50cy8NCkh0bWxpemVkOiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vdG9v bHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC10aHViZXJ0LTZsby1mb3J3YXJkaW5nLWZyYWdtZW50cy0w MQ0KRGlmZjogICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcmZjZGlmZj91cmwyPWRyYWZ0 LXRodWJlcnQtNmxvLWZvcndhcmRpbmctZnJhZ21lbnRzLTAxDQoNCkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgSW4g b3JkZXIgdG8gYmUgcm91dGVkLCBhIGZyYWdtZW50ZWQgcGFja2V0IG11c3QgYmUgcmVhc3NlbWJs ZWQgYXQNCiAgIGV2ZXJ5IGhvcCBvZiBhIG11bHRpaG9wIGxpbmsgd2hlcmUgbG93ZXIgbGF5ZXIg ZnJhZ21lbnRhdGlvbiBvY2N1cnMuDQogICBDb25zaWRlcmluZyB0aGF0IHRoZSBJUHY2IG1pbmlt dW0gTVRVIGlzIDEyODAgYnl0ZXMgYW5kIHRoYXQgYW4gYW4NCiAgIDgwMi4xNS40IGZyYW1lIGNh biBoYXZlIGEgcGF5bG9hZCBsaW1pdGVkIHRvIDc0IGJ5dGVzIGluIHRoZSB3b3JzdA0KICAgY2Fz ZSwgYSBwYWNrZXQgbWlnaHQgZW5kIHVwIGZyYWdtZW50ZWQgaW50byBhcyBtYW55IGFzIDE4IGZy YWdtZW50cw0KICAgYXQgdGhlIDZMb1dQQU4gc2hpbSBsYXllci4gIElmIGEgc2luZ2xlIG9uZSBv ZiB0aG9zZSBmcmFnbWVudHMgaXMNCiAgIGxvc3QgaW4gdHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uLCBhbGwgZnJhZ21l bnRzIG11c3QgYmUgcmVzZW50LCBmdXJ0aGVyDQogICBjb250cmlidXRpbmcgdG8gdGhlIGNvbmdl c3Rpb24gdGhhdCBtaWdodCBoYXZlIGNhdXNlZCB0aGUgaW5pdGlhbA0KICAgcGFja2V0IGxvc3Mu ICBUaGlzIGRyYWZ0IGludHJvZHVjZXMgYSBzaW1wbGUgcHJvdG9jb2wgdG8gZm9yd2FyZCBhbmQN CiAgIHJlY292ZXIgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBmcmFnbWVudHMgdGhhdCBtaWdodCBiZSBsb3N0IG92ZXIg bXVsdGlwbGUgaG9wcw0KICAgYmV0d2VlbiA2TG9XUEFOIGVuZHBvaW50cy4NCg0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KDQoNClBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoYXQgaXQgbWF5IHRha2UgYSBjb3Vw bGUgb2YgbWludXRlcyBmcm9tIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gdW50aWwgdGhlIGh0bWxp emVkIHZlcnNpb24gYW5kIGRpZmYgYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy4NCg0K VGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K From nobody Fri Feb 14 09:40:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330841A032E for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:40:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ea2YptdbFH-0 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:40:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF041A0346 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:40:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube8.xs4all.net [194.109.20.206]) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s1EHeBAJ020745 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:40:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl) Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-61-203.w86-202.abo.wanadoo.fr ([86.202.196.203]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:40:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:40:11 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: roll@ietf.org Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org Message-ID: <3ced68b0da863cbbba1fe31ef60e951c@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (wuVZSJSv+xwz6nic3aMMjr+6OIRdd+Av) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/uWVkk_C8NyTvl3LiZRZNm68tsRw Subject: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-vanderstok-roll-admin-local-policy-00.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, 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, 14 Feb 2014 17:40:18 -0000 The scope of MPL messages has recently received a lot of attention. One of the results is the definition of the admin-local scope that must be administratively configured. A strong wish emerged to automate the admin-local scope policy. This draft proposes such automation. Peter A new version of I-D, draft-vanderstok-roll-admin-local-policy-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Peter van der Stok and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-vanderstok-roll-admin-local-policy Revision: 00 Title: MPL forwarder policy for multicast with admin-local scope Document date: 2014-02-14 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 8 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vanderstok-roll-admin-local-policy-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vanderstok-roll-admin-local-policy/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanderstok-roll-admin-local-policy-00 Abstract: The purpose of this document is to specify a policy for the routing of multicast messages with admin-local scope. 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. The IETF Secretariat From nobody Fri Feb 14 15:16:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582CC1A046C; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:16:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e-nCpYpwR0B8; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:16:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397611A045D; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:16:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.0.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140214231648.28570.85827.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:16:48 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/4ZUdAcXirFPvfoNN5n04KJ1bQQc Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-08.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 14 Feb 2014 23:16:52 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : Applicability Statement for the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) in AMI Networks Authors : Daniel Popa Matthew Gillmore Laurent Toutain Jonathan Hui Kazuya Monden Ruben Salazar Filename : draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-08.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2014-02-14 Abstract: This document discusses the applicability of RPL in Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) networks. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-08 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 nobody Fri Feb 14 15:18:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFB11A03ED; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:18:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dwe8oTHI6Ph0; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:18:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973C51A0477; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:17:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.0.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140214231756.16513.90900.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:17:56 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/EXZMo6cb7kAUK2jox1HUz7bd3_o Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-07.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 14 Feb 2014 23:18:06 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. 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) Authors : Jonathan W. Hui Richard Kelsey Filename : draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-07.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2014-02-14 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-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-07 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 nobody Sat Feb 15 15:00:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EB81A02A7 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:00:46 -0800 (PST) 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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AkU5kLyE3X1o for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:00:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yk0-x232.google.com (mail-yk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8D31A00F5 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:00:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id 79so27411081ykr.9 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:00:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=3nGBrYx3P7Za1aMDyknkxtjBlu3Ntj/yCdCz8InsQIk=; b=hfbR1u1vHpCOFOl4gvu6Hxoi5+JF/8lIAoOyVwvpkZmfL+6pzOQQL2BSHUurIeysBp UQ5CDDUnvUmaqgz2xhWerC+wGAH3H8xfhUqU9LTY2vWA/cOmZ+P/5OgXAK8DR2Dtq0w/ h1nMY7UI6xmupeHNr7e+aOW+98PHGlGcH/d9bPmLtsAdDE3rTpDHYvl4q1iYXICyPdoq LNLDFDCSXtjNvH8PVEZqlx3XIL+p3a/pFl4N/2AJD2CB8cnTrxNDy7X52Gjw8vlX9EXa Y6oiafXXyethoR2fLriFc+PcavKDhUKxqfckQijYUv9j1JcN6VhgunbnDYF+8eEJudsS /U7A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.126.162 with SMTP id b22mr6086211yhi.72.1392505241409; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:00:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.170.222.3 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:00:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 00:00:41 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301af605431d3904f279e479 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/NWbK6wUUi6Shzo3lFPe8Rho2HPs Subject: [Roll] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-01.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 15 Feb 2014 23:00:46 -0000 --20cf301af605431d3904f279e479 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Friday, February 14, 2014, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Dear all, > > In the light of recent exchanges on the ROLL and 6TiSCH mailing lists, I > suggest we focus discussions on this draft on the 6lo ML. I don't mind it on roll as well, but will reply to those exchanges. I am still looking into it, but need more time to review. So my silence means I need more time to decide. > Considering that we are getting effective contribution indicating that th= e > end-to-end ARQ is effectively needed, I decided to republish to reboot th= e > work. Yes > Once we get past the "is it really needed" question, the next fair > question is whether the proposed mechanism is adapted and to evaluate > eventual alternates. I think I supported the work before but forgot why it was not progressed. > > If you agree that we need fragment forwarding and recovery *please shime > in*. > If you are willing to spend effective time on it and contribute to the > solution, *please shime in*. > In any case, please cc the 6lo mailing list *only*. > > Cheers, > > Pascal > > > -----Original Message----- > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: vendredi 14 f=E9vrier 2014 14:05 > To: Jonathan Hui (johui); Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Jonathan Hui (johui)= ; > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-01.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Pascal Thubert and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Name: draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments > Revision: 01 > Title: LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery > Document date: 2014-02-14 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 14 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragment= s-01.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments/ > Htmlized: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-01 > Diff: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments= -01 > > Abstract: > In order to be routed, a fragmented packet must be reassembled at > every hop of a multihop link where lower layer fragmentation occurs. > Considering that the IPv6 minimum MTU is 1280 bytes and that an an > 802.15.4 frame can have a payload limited to 74 bytes in the worst > case, a packet might end up fragmented into as many as 18 fragments > at the 6LoWPAN shim layer. If a single one of those fragments is > lost in transmission, all fragments must be resent, further > contributing to the congestion that might have caused the initial > packet loss. This draft introduces a simple protocol to forward and > recover individual fragments that might be lost over multiple hops > between 6LoWPAN endpoints. > > > > > 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. > > The IETF Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > --20cf301af605431d3904f279e479 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Friday, February 14, 2014, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Dear all,

In the light of recent exchanges on the ROLL and 6TiSCH mailing lists, I su= ggest we focus discussions on this draft on the 6lo ML.
= =A0
I don't mind it on roll as well, but will reply to those = exchanges.=A0

I am still looking into it, but need more time to review. So my silenc= e means I need more time to decide.=A0
=A0
Considering that we are getting effective contribution indicating that the = end-to-end ARQ is effectively needed, I decided to republish to reboot the = work.

Yes
=A0
Once we get past the "is it really needed" question, the next fai= r question is whether the proposed mechanism is adapted and to evaluate eve= ntual alternates.

I think I supported the w= ork before but forgot why=A0it was not progressed.=A0=A0

If you agree that we need fragment forwarding and recovery *please shime in= *.
If you are willing to spend effective time on it and contribute to the solu= tion, *please shime in*.
In any case, please cc the 6lo mailing list *only*.

Cheers,

Pascal


-----Original Message-----
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
Sent: vendredi 14 f=E9vrier 2014 14:05
To: Jonathan Hui (johui); Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Jonathan Hui (johui); = Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragment= s-01.txt


A new version of I-D, draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Pascal Thubert and posted to the IETF re= pository.

Name: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments
Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 01
Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery
Document date: =A02014-02-14
Group: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Individual Submission
Pages: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A014
URL: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www= .ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-01.txt=
Status: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 https://datatracker.iet= f.org/doc/draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments/
Htmlized: =A0 =A0 =A0 http://tools.ietf.org/html/dr= aft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-01
Diff: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ietf.o= rg/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-01

Abstract:
=A0 =A0In order to be routed, a fragmented packet must be reassembled at =A0 =A0every hop of a multihop link where lower layer fragmentation occurs.=
=A0 =A0Considering that the IPv6 minimum MTU is 1280 bytes and that an an =A0 =A0802.15.4 frame can have a payload limited to 74 bytes in the worst =A0 =A0case, a packet might end up fragmented into as many as 18 fragments<= br> =A0 =A0at the 6LoWPAN shim layer. =A0If a single one of those fragments is<= br> =A0 =A0lost in transmission, all fragments must be resent, further
=A0 =A0contributing to the congestion that might have caused the initial =A0 =A0packet loss. =A0This draft introduces a simple protocol to forward a= nd
=A0 =A0recover individual fragments that might be lost over multiple hops =A0 =A0between 6LoWPAN endpoints.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
--20cf301af605431d3904f279e479-- From nobody Sun Feb 16 11:15:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCE71A0255 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:15:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8IwQdY2i8wpT for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:15:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB0D1A0254 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:15:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34694 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WF7BS-0007fU-RC; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:15:23 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:15:22 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/145#comment:3 Message-ID: <082.e03f8ec246b98b589780858e3a432ee6@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 145 In-Reply-To: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/j3sSlN8c9zKECzS_X2T_lsfG_ZI Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:15:35 -0000 #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): In version 07: Section 5.4: * The title of changed from "MPL Forwarder Parameters" to "MPL Parameters" * This sentence was deleted: “It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Interfaces attached to the same link of a given MPL Domain use the same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING†-- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 16 11:21:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6FF1A025A for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:21:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zwCV8optfVnD for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:21:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D0D1A0257 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:21:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35421 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WF7H0-0003f0-7u; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:21:06 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:21:06 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/146#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.7941c821f7f44b1d984f254758f1cb87@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.1a9d14e0b4f089dfc394de0f9b107777@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 146 In-Reply-To: <067.1a9d14e0b4f089dfc394de0f9b107777@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/r6OI9BNzfxF0LJFKqVtDkmnCetA Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #146: EED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME without any kind of hysteresis mechanism X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:21:15 -0000 #146: EED_SET_ENTRY_LIFETIME without any kind of hysteresis mechanism Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08497.html From: Axel Colin de Verdière Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:05:18 +0100 Alright, got it, thanks. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 16 11:39:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AF51A0262 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:38:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQNFLaKyf5gI for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:38:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395D21A025C for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:38:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35789 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WF7Y5-0001gN-Mq; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:38:46 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:38:45 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/148#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.dea9fccfb06835b2a7b393c0da3ba372@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.7c464680c53f628cfab1cc71ac58b5ba@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 148 In-Reply-To: <067.7c464680c53f628cfab1cc71ac58b5ba@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/VjARbJC92BEZdjV4PcFFiOxFe9I Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #148: Delete paragraph of Applicability Statement not more alignment with multicast-scope draft X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:38:59 -0000 #148: Delete paragraph of Applicability Statement not more alignment with multicast-scope draft Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: In version 07: This paragraph was deleted in the Introduction section: "Operationally, the scope of this protocol is administratively determined. In other words, the scope of dissemination is determined by routers configured to disallow transmission or reception of MPL messages on a subset of interfaces." In Section 5.4 this sentence "MPL Domain and has a default value of 30 minutes" was changed to "MPL Domain and use a default value of 30 minutes" -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 16 11:56:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334791A026D for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:56:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UuYhiimGzKit for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:56:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25031A0214 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:56:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36752 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WF7or-0003I3-VJ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:56:06 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:56:05 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/149#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.b108574bf7927b3544bfeb60b1ea81e3@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.194a72a73dbb35158a97d15d2e50bd89@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 149 In-Reply-To: <067.194a72a73dbb35158a97d15d2e50bd89@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/wWrrR7iKtm-tYmypsImLIeCiuqc Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #149: Unclear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are in use X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:56:17 -0000 #149: Unclear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are in use Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): In version 07 - Section 4.1 "and/or" was replaced by "or" -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 16 12:10:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5761A026A for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:10:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zTdLy3_7kyD6 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:10:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181551A0208 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:10:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37383 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WF82r-0003BC-TH; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 21:10:33 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:10:33 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/147#comment:3 Message-ID: <082.77479f8a592162998218ec7635297698@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.b6d891fd0f9fd5f4ea28762de50609f7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 147 In-Reply-To: <067.b6d891fd0f9fd5f4ea28762de50609f7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/tyPshC6zJdm5F5d0m4eq_v0d_uU Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #147: Unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:10:46 -0000 #147: Unclear when the M flag should be cleared or set Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08501.html From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:45:36 +0000 The text is written to allow one to reduce MPL to a simple flood with packet caching to avoid receiving a packet more than once. In this case, there is no real need to maintain the largest sequence number. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Mon Feb 17 05:53:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5521A03E1 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 05:53:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gr4YfC78C1nv for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 05:53:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x22b.google.com (mail-ve0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FD61A01EA for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 05:53:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id pa12so12001683veb.2 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 05:53:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=YaxH5eJdRx569GD5wXVKFvCj+jLqa+GlYfoqsHXXzgA=; b=Mjf/4vnB5Q8OLDrASiWaA4F/RUo+c9/YcyDs4QiLrjEOrkDY8VX8bi7Jsmn4/MtNof MB5pC2bfJC3dTBU3GB6jvDg3uoYjshGw08NlLjpWPXBLqZMSrDzAsM0be+1czp+EeJ3a 2f+rTI4yE+XQF2MK0Fc7rcQSwZLojD4bj6ET6EDiWbDfAPL27bG3izru58gP6F9DS4+Z yQY77apB5Z8RJ60pQCY+iQWUbHCsP08SVFb6NkwuI+JkWyMlY33qP5HYPNG9k+56E3tH RKYY/IV4pplq7E/xynWwlrjYNFo8AdKzBoriHRWv/nZpTy13tLMSb3JrFC4o+yjCd1Qw pgjg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.27.133 with SMTP id rq5mr10258618vcb.9.1392645213967; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 05:53:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 05:53:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:53:33 -0300 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001a113394e047f3c304f29a7b4f Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/k_Qg9t09dG0FUSz4m934XdcL_xI Subject: [Roll] Draft agenda for IETF89- slides- please send to us X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 17 Feb 2014 13:53:39 -0000 --001a113394e047f3c304f29a7b4f Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113394e047f3be04f29a7b4d --001a113394e047f3be04f29a7b4d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, This is a Kindly Reminder for the slides: If your document is here, and you have not yet sent us some slides, please send us something by Feb. 17, updates accepted until Feb. 28. Thanks and Regards, Michael & Ines. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Richardson Date: 2014-02-07 11:25 GMT-03:00 Subject: [Roll] draft agenda for IETF89 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks here is the draft agenda. If your document is here, and yo uhave not yet sent us some slides, please send us something by Feb. 17, updates accepted until Feb. 28. (If we don't receive slides, you will be removed from the agenda) If your name is here and you can not present, please contact us. Ines & Michael Agenda: 1) note well - new version (2min, 00:00) 2) state of all drafts slide (5min, 02:00) a) draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building b) draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami c) draft-ietf-roll-security-threats d) draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast e) draft-ietf-terminology -> RFC 7102 3) state of all issues slide (3min, 08:00) 4) updates to milestones, schedule and practice. (5min, 11:00) 5) update on: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building (slides received) (10min, 21:00) 6) update on: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami (10min, 31:00) 7) draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability detail the resolution (3min, 34:00) 8) updates on: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template. (4min, 38:00) 9) mpl issue: draft-roux-roll-mpl-eval-00 (15min, 53:00) 10) mpl issue: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration (10min, 63:00) 11) new work: draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness (15min, 78:00) 12) Open floor. (12 minutes) -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll --001a113394e047f3be04f29a7b4d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

This is a Kindly Reminder for the s= lides:

If your document is here, and you have not = yet sent us some slides, please
send us something by Feb. 17, updates ac= cepted until Feb. 28.

Thanks and Regards,

Michael & Ines.


--= -------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Date: 2014-02-07 11:25 GMT-03:00
Subject: [Roll] draft agenda for IETF89=
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>



here is the draft agenda.
If your document is here, and yo uhave not yet sent us some slides, please<= br> send us something by Feb. 17, updates accepted until Feb. 28.
(If we don't receive slides, you will be removed from the agenda)

If your name is here and you can not present, please contact us.

Ines & Michael


Agenda:
1) note well - new version (2min, 00:00)
2) state of all drafts slide (5min, 02:00)
=A0 =A0a) draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building
=A0 =A0b) draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami
=A0 =A0c) draft-ietf-roll-security-threats
=A0 =A0d) draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast
=A0 =A0e) draft-ietf-terminology -> =A0RFC 7102
3) state of all issues slide (3min, 08:00)
4) updates to milestones, schedule and practice. (5min, 11:00)
5) update on: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building (slides received)=
(10min, 21:00)
6) update on: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami (10min, 31:00)
7) draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability detail the resolution (3min= ,
34:00)
8) updates on: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template. (4min, 38:00)
9) mpl issue: draft-roux-roll-mpl-eval-00 (15min, 53:00)
10) mpl issue: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration (10min, 63:00) 11) new work: draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness (15min, 78:00)
12) Open floor. (12 minutes)


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@= sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair. =A0 =A0http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/<= /a>


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


--001a113394e047f3be04f29a7b4d-- --001a113394e047f3c304f29a7b4f Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: attachment Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Attachment-Id: 5a5830ed512698ff_0.0.1 LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0NClZlcnNpb246IEdudVBHIHYxLjQuMTIgKEdO VS9MaW51eCkNCg0KaVFDVkF3VUJVdlRzeTRxSFJnM3BuZFg5QVFMaUVnUC9hbVFWTG1rSlJLV1R6 RWN0RVlIUU45YXJTQjBtZUo5Lw0KSjIvc2w5azF5ZnlvOERqY29MdnphdWN3elFQTjNiVUtLZkRu RFF1Nzd6Y3dCTHlvellNa3YvbjBGdlVwNHhkQQ0KUGc2clBaOVYwTFNPSmVITmF6akRxMTE3U3Rz WkhMUEtkbTFacGtJTHVGR1NmUjZscW5ZTkJCV0g2SXVQUjFJTA0KRkYrdG41SWc5Nm89DQo9Zm0r MQ0KLS0tLS1FTkQgUEdQIFNJR05BVFVSRS0tLS0t --001a113394e047f3c304f29a7b4f-- From nobody Mon Feb 17 06:57:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35C01A0394 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:20:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_BIG_TO_CC=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tDWb2-cwTQCN for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:20:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2607:f170:8000:1500::d3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A961D1A00DD for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:20:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 3B7037FC2C9; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:20:28 -0800 (PST) To: wintert@acm.org, pthubert@cisco.com, abr@sdesigns.dk, jhui@archrock.com, kelsey@ember.com, pal@cs.stanford.edu, kpister@dustnetworks.com, rstruik.ext@gmail.com, jpv@cisco.com, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com, stbryant@cisco.com, adrian@olddog.co.uk, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20140217092028.3B7037FC2C9@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:20:28 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/wTUowUoabu6eQ6dbPEKYB275tl8 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 06:57:02 -0800 Cc: roll@ietf.org, lei.mou.uu@gmail.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Roll] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6550 (3895) X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 17 Feb 2014 09:20:33 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6550, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6550&eid=3895 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Lei Mou Section: 9.8 Original Text ------------- 1. The DODAG Parent Address subfield of a Transmit Information option MUST be empty. 5. ... When a storing node generates a DAO, it uses the stored state of DAOs it has received to produce a set of RPL Target options and their associated Transmit Information options. Corrected Text -------------- 1. The DODAG Parent Address subfield of a Transit Information option MUST be empty. 5. ... When a storing node generates a DAO, it uses the stored state of DAOs it has received to produce a set of RPL Target options and their associated Transit Information options. Notes ----- There is no "Transmit Information option", It should be Transit Information option. I believe it's quite possible caused by a typo. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6550 (draft-ietf-roll-rpl-19) -------------------------------------- Title : RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks Publication Date : March 2012 Author(s) : T. Winter, Ed., P. Thubert, Ed., A. Brandt, J. Hui, R. Kelsey, P. Levis, K. Pister, R. Struik, JP. Vasseur, R. Alexander Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Mon Feb 17 10:07:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B623D1A0101 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:07:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RmgYMzRH8f_D for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:07:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B79C1A002C for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:07:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36259 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WFSbA-0004aR-OL; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:07:20 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:07:20 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/149#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.ed87cb17cf58d740e080cf46e1096fb7@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.194a72a73dbb35158a97d15d2e50bd89@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 149 In-Reply-To: <067.194a72a73dbb35158a97d15d2e50bd89@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/DGhRwW0MmSit0Q7JVCGTUyVsK7w Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #149: Unclear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are in use X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:07:29 -0000 #149: Unclear on whether, in deployments where scop values 4 and/or 5 are in use Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Mon Feb 17 10:08:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626981A0418 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:08:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DvnPgN7hlB8J for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:08:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B341B1A050C for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36272 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WFScH-0004eg-5u; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:08:29 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:08:29 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/145#comment:4 Message-ID: <082.ea79ec9bb54e046dc4787cb77b3d0ce4@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 145 In-Reply-To: <067.79caf3d48565d14915d46ba9623f2ab0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/_EyCpEKOA26E0h3Df3Ky2m1sz3o Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:08:38 -0000 #145: The same value for PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be not recommended Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Tue Feb 18 02:55:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B011A00DD for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 02:55:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w4vPN3Pawr9X for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 02:55:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0210.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0431A032F for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 02:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from CO2PR04MB715.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.229.144) by CO2PR04MB714.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.229.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.878.16; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:55:35 +0000 Received: from CO2PR04MB715.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.229.144]) by CO2PR04MB715.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.229.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0878.008; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:55:35 +0000 From: "Mani, Mehdi" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Thread-Index: AQHPJ2DujgTP/DUAtkWf56SM0RYhnZq639rw Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:55:34 +0000 Message-ID: <2283739730e54ff39ae193773f2dc48c@CO2PR04MB715.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [109.2.132.3] x-forefront-prvs: 0126A32F74 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019001)(6009001)(13464003)(199002)(189002)(83072002)(85852003)(63696002)(54316002)(85306002)(51856001)(69226001)(54356001)(76482001)(81542001)(53806001)(81342001)(87266001)(50986001)(47976001)(87936001)(2656002)(90146001)(80022001)(56816005)(66066001)(74706001)(65816001)(74876001)(74366001)(33646001)(76576001)(76796001)(76786001)(74316001)(80976001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(83322001)(77982001)(95666001)(74502001)(94316002)(86362001)(93136001)(93516002)(81686001)(47446002)(56776001)(4396001)(47736001)(49866001)(95416001)(46102001)(92566001)(74662001)(31966008)(81816001)(94946001)(59766001)(79102001)(15202345003)(15975445006)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR04MB714; H:CO2PR04MB715.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:109.2.132.3; FPR:BC40F07D.AE33D7C9.B3C3BC63.44E39E69.20362; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: itron.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/YwotN2aTFBpFLaTtzhHPXVIahJ8 Cc: Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:55:45 -0000 I believe that it is an interesting subject to peruse. There are certainly = some usecases for storing mode and mixed storing/non-storing modes.=20 -Mehdi=20 -----Original Message----- From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson Sent: mardi 11 f=E9vrier 2014 20:38 To: draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org; Ines Robles Subject: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology, which expires on Friday from: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology/ describes a way to do mixed storing/non-storing topologies. My first question is to the authors: 1) do you continue to pursue this work? What is your intent for this document? 2) will you update with any new results? To the WG: 3) is there interest in persuing this line of investigation at this time? We had previously put investigation of this on hold until we figured o= ut a number of other things. Please read this document, and consider whether this document would help advance this, or if we need one or a number of approaches. Do we have a good enough problem statement? If we recharter in Toronto, I would expect that solving this problem will a= mong the most important reasons to re-charter. (again, please recall that absence of comments implies disinterest. +1 are = welcome) Abstract The RPL specification allows nodes running with storing or non- storing modes to operate in the same network. We describe how such a mix can result in network partitioning even when there are plenty of physical links available in the network. The partitioning affects both upwards (nodes to root) and downwards (root to leaf) traffic. This routing pathology stems from a recommendation made in the RPL specification forcing nodes with different modes of operation to join the RPL network as leaf nodes only. We propose a solution that modifies RPL by mandating that all the nodes parse and interpret source routing headers and storing mode nodes to sometimes act like a non-storing mode root by attaching source routing headers. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ From nobody Tue Feb 18 03:20:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1CFB1A047F for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:20:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jzGbO_OkciBF for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:20:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD8C1A0482 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:20:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1IBKR3f024080; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:20:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from eduroam-pool7-1549.wlan.uni-bremen.de (eduroam-pool7-1549.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.118.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C05F738F; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:20:26 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:20:25 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <95839E70-D5AB-47BB-995C-5CDF06D2ED7E@tzi.org> References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org> <19014.1392312790@sandelman.ca> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/3Mk_1_-RHERjLZK3eaByzb29aq8 Cc: Ines Robles , "draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:20:36 -0000 On 14 Feb 2014, at 06:08, =EC=A0=95=EC=A2=85=EC=88=98 = wrote: > We suggested a new MOP that requires a few minor changes from existing = storing mode and non-storing mode. Again, I would suggest designing for no changes to non-storing modes at = all plus a completely new class of hybrid nodes (just forget about the = old storing mode). Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Tue Feb 18 15:38:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06921A02AE for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:38:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xMPJMiTGSFL0 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:38:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B961A0106 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:38:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44002 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WFuEn-00025N-DU; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:38:05 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:38:05 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/142#comment:1 Message-ID: <086.1fafa41cae6dda0a3ec14d48626e3a74@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <071.83a629a0f47b2e8cb70a862eb5b7f060@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 142 In-Reply-To: <071.83a629a0f47b2e8cb70a862eb5b7f060@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: abr@sdesigns.dk, consultancy@vanderstok.org, emmanuel.baccelli@inria.fr, robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/QetE3Qno6rz0nZY5PtIWERykANM Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #142: Clarification of secure key distribution X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:38:25 -0000 #142: Clarification of secure key distribution Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Original Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg04453.html In draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-02: Section 6.3 adds a concise definition of secure delivery and secure storage. In Section 6.3, the SmartObj reference was deleted. it was replaced by a reference to I-D.ietf-roll-security-threats in Section 6.1 -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com | applicability-home- Type: defect | building@tools.ietf.org Priority: minor | Status: new Component: applicability-home- | Milestone: building | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Tue Feb 18 15:39:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03C31A02AF for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:39:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L6xtu_MQhqWK for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:39:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE42F1A0106 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:39:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44012 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WFuFi-0001VG-DL; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:39:02 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:39:02 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/143#comment:1 Message-ID: <086.9eb251bd4b92d1e2d974557e6dfed18f@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <071.5be08847a6561b89ec88486a7dfc5102@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 143 In-Reply-To: <071.5be08847a6561b89ec88486a7dfc5102@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: abr@sdesigns.dk, consultancy@vanderstok.org, emmanuel.baccelli@inria.fr, robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/WBcdtxVkACWx434G1ymwTyGktdw Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #143: Status of Reference [SmartObj] X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:39:16 -0000 #143: Status of Reference [SmartObj] Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Original Thread: ​http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg04453.html In draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-02: In Section 6.3, the SmartObj? reference was deleted. it was replaced by a reference to I-D.ietf-roll-security-threats in Section 6.1 -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com | applicability-home- Type: defect | building@tools.ietf.org Priority: major | Status: closed Component: applicability-home- | Milestone: building | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: fixed Keywords: Security Review | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Tue Feb 18 19:24:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524FC1A0312 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:24:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SOP0r_3-ZpKw for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:24:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37ABB1A030B for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55774 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WFxlL-0007TS-El; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:23:55 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 03:23:55 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/144#comment:1 Message-ID: <086.947d4e29530fe5110b37d0cb4904d6f6@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <071.aa142153295054714a8b618b84a00f2b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 144 In-Reply-To: <071.aa142153295054714a8b618b84a00f2b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: abr@sdesigns.dk, consultancy@vanderstok.org, emmanuel.baccelli@inria.fr, robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/x351CwpRMEcv61PujI5fdIhsTyM Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #144: Missing discussion of link encryption and group keys X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 03:24:25 -0000 #144: Missing discussion of link encryption and group keys Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Original Thread: ​http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg04453.html In draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-02: Was added a new section 6.1: Security context considerations, which mentions about Protocol for carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA), and DTLS/TLS. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com | applicability-home- Type: defect | building@tools.ietf.org Priority: major | Status: new Component: applicability-home- | Milestone: building | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: Security Review | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Fri Feb 21 07:19:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F6A1A0316 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:49:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.376 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_BIG_TO_CC=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RQu5Ll7212uk for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x22c.google.com (mail-vc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2191A02D0 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id lf12so3342135vcb.31 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:49:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LIn/g+sc6W/2zRYH5sbU5lBte1hMFpj2xOm5BOYK2UA=; b=F9cfCVKCnyFti42iB6qnESKd3XWnvIygCGImza9BGrPeEnmpDVw+jq7mxQgLJ/YSjJ +eNBuCE/DhJXMz+wdhJhylFWiYFKtKvx+iVUCGqraC5mD01vxlDAeULNqJWBk+EQVl6r GsvWyCUYNfkxEjtBgm33TBihal8H4tLvi6Y7kWKUJgKb0hH2VZsr7hxrb/vpGi1ArYTX RLli1nAXW28Wy0P3UKZdcYgSvY+5ZhTFYzP+z5aD3zloLZThEC/lwG6JBV2IxYqgOUCT ixYnObNIP/ZXtaWOdMPEKoQmDRiUYZVbEcFFzuLVZQuDv8EkidSjQUiE1fuk8pDSKKTC 6xwA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.46.65 with SMTP id un1mr4967889vcb.67.1392994147133; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:49:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:49:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140217092028.3B7037FC2C9@rfc-editor.org> References: <20140217092028.3B7037FC2C9@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:49:07 -0300 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: RFC Errata System Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11339386506e0f04f2ebb960 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/njCV18HDJBBnQpGdqvTWBeru38E X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:19:23 -0800 Cc: kpister@dustnetworks.com, Michael Richardson , roll , jhui@archrock.com, lei.mou.uu@gmail.com, kelsey@ember.com Subject: Re: [Roll] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6550 (3895) X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 21 Feb 2014 14:49:13 -0000 --001a11339386506e0f04f2ebb960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello, Yes, it is a typo. Thanks Lei Mou for report it. Thanks and Regards, Michael & Ines. 2014-02-17 6:20 GMT-03:00 RFC Errata System : > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6550, > "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6550&eid=3895 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Lei Mou > > Section: 9.8 > > Original Text > ------------- > 1. The DODAG Parent Address subfield of a Transmit Information > option MUST be empty. > > 5. ... > > When a storing node generates a DAO, it uses the stored state of DAOs > it has received to produce a set of RPL Target options and their > associated Transmit Information options. > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > 1. The DODAG Parent Address subfield of a Transit Information > option MUST be empty. > > 5. ... > > When a storing node generates a DAO, it uses the stored state of DAOs > it has received to produce a set of RPL Target options and their > associated Transit Information options. > > Notes > ----- > There is no "Transmit Information option", It should be Transit > Information option. I believe it's quite possible caused by a typo. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6550 (draft-ietf-roll-rpl-19) > -------------------------------------- > Title : RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy > Networks > Publication Date : March 2012 > Author(s) : T. Winter, Ed., P. Thubert, Ed., A. Brandt, J. Hui, > R. Kelsey, P. Levis, K. Pister, R. Struik, JP. Vasseur, R. Alexander > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > --001a11339386506e0f04f2ebb960 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

Yes, it is a typo= .

Thanks Lei Mou for report it.

Thanks and Regard= s,

Michael & Ines.



2014-02-17 6:20 GMT-03:00 RFC Errata System <rfc-= editor@rfc-editor.org>:
The following errata report has been submitt= ed for RFC6550,
"RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc= =3D6550&eid=3D3895

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Lei Mou <lei.mou.uu= @gmail.com>

Section: 9.8

Original Text
-------------
1. =A0The DODAG Parent Address subfield of a Transmit Information
=A0 =A0 option MUST be empty.

5. ...

=A0 =A0When a storing node generates a DAO, it uses the stored state of DAO= s
=A0 =A0it has received to produce a set of RPL Target options and their
=A0 =A0associated Transmit Information options.


Corrected Text
--------------
1. =A0The DODAG Parent Address subfield of a Transit Information
=A0 =A0 option MUST be empty.

5. ...

=A0 =A0When a storing node generates a DAO, it uses the stored state of DAO= s
=A0 =A0it has received to produce a set of RPL Target options and their
=A0 =A0associated Transit Information options.

Notes
-----
There is no "Transmit Information option", It should be Transit I= nformation option. I believe it's quite possible caused by a typo.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, plea= se
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC6550 (draft-ietf-roll-rpl-19)
--------------------------------------
Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Powe= r and Lossy Networks
Publication Date =A0 =A0: March 2012
Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : T. Winter, Ed., P. Thubert, Ed., A. Brandt,= J. Hui, R. Kelsey, P. Levis, K. Pister, R. Struik, JP. Vasseur, R. Alexand= er
Category =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: PROPOSED STANDARD
Source =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networ= ks
Area =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: Routing
Stream =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: IETF
Verifying Party =A0 =A0 : IESG

--001a11339386506e0f04f2ebb960-- From nobody Fri Feb 21 12:23:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD511A026F for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:23:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q7WmlXqriZEe for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:23:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x236.google.com (mail-vc0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630661A024D for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:23:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id id10so3769291vcb.13 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:23:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3U7Bhh2lilAr3zcj0ZFAnhbLe+wNycE5zXeiP5b6qoY=; b=qcE498kol01ptv4o2QMyeaosSVyoeV4fnYQl8zG3lGCpa3IjITB2AoIPe3MZLrws/1 ELBtFntnQAmwcANqp8/0Vmmb7uDjnuFxHDqT6Y5Wd9fQL+LzMo15YwHd5cRXVJaIfr/W 5UcU2nGTQnNzkODBy1OsLgiu2u3UlUlHJ928A3yP5nU17oZBlaHNH+Y7EFAip20YLDM8 Gda/nzGeJzL44dYWPfHcV7AbfeioEZWIZ/ip8T5cy1sw1BvACwEMaATz8ICOVKy4Fwbt f5np2jX46OpkYrnU4G6C2P2HIOrLKUj9PSwHNmtfaBrhqSedIP40IIN+peuiYU2wsiMK vH7A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.37.200 with SMTP id tf8mr5966707vcb.54.1393014220099; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:23:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:23:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:23:39 -0300 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11338efcc195b404f2f065e1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/rsmkwhTtzSFsfmnvTWrnoKZ1UnI Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] Slides - IETF 89 - available to download X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 21 Feb 2014 20:23:46 -0000 --001a11338efcc195b404f2f065e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Please find the slides for the meeting in this link, for us is better have a single doc with all the slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-roll-0.pdf These slides are not definitive, please let us know if you find something that should be corrected before the meeting in London. We will keep you posted about the last version. Thank you and Kind Regards, Michael & Ines. --001a11338efcc195b404f2f065e1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

Please find the slides for th= e meeting in this link, for us is better have a single doc with all the sli= des:


These slides are not definitive, plea= se let us know if you find something that should be corrected before the me= eting in London.

We will keep you post= ed about the last version.

Thank you and Kind Regards,

Michael & Ines.

--001a11338efcc195b404f2f065e1-- From nobody Sun Feb 23 10:38:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAF81A06B4 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 10:38:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.453 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qgqXl1KAm7st for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 10:38:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CF21A06B2 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 10:38:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45151 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WHdwg-00040X-M3; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:38:34 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:38:34 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/150 Message-ID: <067.3ddb78c0b47d80e1d4f03a63dc19cb3c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 150 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Resent-To: angel.lozano@upf.edu, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, mischa.dohler@cttc.es, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com, tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, vanesa.daza@upf.edu Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/kg04QmG_dUIyBA5ciW1_ctHCEAk Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #150: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 - Editorial comments X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:38:52 -0000 #150: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 - Editorial comments Reported by Robert Cragie as Doc. Shepherd. on 02/17/2014 * Section 1: 2nd Paragraph:s/applicatbility/applicability 3rd Paragraph:s/includes/describes 3rd Paragraph: s/but/security services and * Section 3: 1st Paragraph: s/assesment/assessment/ 1st Paragraph: s/security/security,/ * Section 3.1 1st Paragraph: s/components/assets * Section 3.2 1st P: s/RPL/RPL:/[[BR]] * Section 3.4 s/iintegrity/integrity * Section 5 3rd P: s/these attackes/of these attackers/ * Section 5.1.1 s?/leveraged from/implied by/ * Section 5.1.3 s/potentionally/potentially/ * Section 5.2 s/threat actions/attacks Either "threat" or "attack" - a "threat action" is an attack s/This threat results/These attacks may result s/it involves/may involve * Section 5.2.1 s/memory/available memory * Section 5.2.2 s/attachers/attackers 2nd P: s/threats or attacks/attacks 3rd P: s/(other than occurring through explicit node exchanges) will include/will include: No real need to say "other than..." as this is the authorized case s/react quickly to exclude a compromised device/detect a compromised device and react quickly to exclude it * Section 5.4.2 Figure 2: Selective s/Forwarding/forwarding example Figure 3: Wormhole s/Attacks/attack example Figure 4: s/Selective Forwarding, Wormhole, and Sinkhole Attacks/sinkhole attack example * Section 6.1.1 s/exchaning/exchanging * Section 6.1.2 s/well equiped/well-equipped * Section 6.1.4 ...as part of a routing s/protocol security/protocol, security of routing information… * Section 6.2.2 ...introduce false routes or s/topology/a false topology that would not s/be generated by the network/occur otherwise,... s/overlaims/overclaims or misclaims * Section 6.2.4 Note that for there to be no s/affect/effect at all,... * Section 6.3.1 s/WormHole/wormhole * Section 6.3.5 s/Wormhole/wormhole s/hystersis/hysteresis * Section 7.3 Availability of routing information is linked to system and network s/availability which/availability, which in the case of LLNs * Section 10 s?/threads/threats -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | security-threats@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 23 11:58:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0857D1A06E1 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 11:58:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ek0araFka61J for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 11:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279491A06B6 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 11:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48457 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WHfBs-0005zF-WA; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:58:21 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:58:20 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/151 Message-ID: <067.0c276852a543ee4b2a1cc06f0aaf384f@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 151 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Resent-To: angel.lozano@upf.edu, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, mischa.dohler@cttc.es, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com, tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, vanesa.daza@upf.edu Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HUQGIqe64NTCKlGmAiru2rOZX9M Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #151: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 1-4 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:58:38 -0000 #151: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 1-4 Reported by Robert Cragie as Doc. Shepherd. - 02/17/2014 * Section 1 Introduction All of this document concerns itself with securing the control plane traffic. As such it does not address authorization or authentication of application traffic, nor does it deal with multicast traffic controls. Mechanisms used to secure RPL traffic SHOULD be leveraged to secure other protocols. It should do, because often normal traffic is used to judge metrics used for routing. Unless normal traffic can be authenticated, it may be fraudulent and therefore ineligible for inclusion in metrics Also, given the importance of multicast in RPL (for disseminating DIOs), it does need to be considered * Section 3.3: Issues Specific to or Amplified in LLN The work [RFC5548], [RFC5673], [RFC5826], and [RFC5867] have identified specific issues and constraints of routing in LLNs for the urban, industrial, home automation, and building automation application domains, respectively. The following is a list of observations and evaluation of their impact on routing security considerations. Too many inferences are made inline. It just needs a short summary and then relate it to the constraints it puts on the assets identified earlier * Section 3.4. RPL Security Objectives This section seems superfluous as it is all covered elsewhere * Section 4. Threat Sources [RFC4593] provides a detailed review of the threat sources: outsiders and byzantine. RPL has the same threat sources. It's probably easier to establish as early on as possible (in the assets section) that the routing process has all the properties of a general system (in terms of using data at rest, data in transit, information accumulation, information processing and information update) and therefore is subject to the same set of general threats and subsequent attacks -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | security-threats@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 23 12:06:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A101A06F4 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:06:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ixNDpL4-SnD6 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:06:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9851A06F3 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:06:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48666 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WHfJO-0000CH-Ff; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 21:06:06 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:06:06 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/152 Message-ID: <067.ea0f5fb7c02a51fe7d13f9cc66287cad@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 152 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Resent-To: angel.lozano@upf.edu, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, mischa.dohler@cttc.es, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com, tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, vanesa.daza@upf.edu Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/h4JJl6HD3WpvW6JIL3Mm9F_kInc Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #152: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 5 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:06:19 -0000 #152: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 5 Reported by Robert Cragie - 02/17/2014 * Section 5 Threats and Attacks The source of the attacks is assumed to be from either inside or outside attackers. The capability these attackes may be limited to node- equivalent, but also to more sophisticated computing platforms. The above sentence is difficult to read and understand ("node- equivalent"?) * Section 5.1. Threats due to failures to Authenticate I would say these are more consequences for the routing process than threats * Section 5.1.1. Node Impersonation If an attacker can join a network with any identify, What does "join a network with any identify" mean? In other systems where there is separate application layer security, the ability to impersonate a node would permit an attacker to direct traffic to itself, which facilitates on-path attacks including replaying, delaying, or duplicating control messages. I don't understand the distinction for separate application layer security wrt. directing traffic to itself. Moreover, the intra-asset security domains outside of the control plane have not been clearly identified at this point * Section 5.1.2. Dummy Node If an attacker can join a network with any identify, What does "join a network with any identify" mean? then it can pretend to be a legitimate node, receiving any service legitimate nodes receive. It may also be able to report false readings (in metering applications), or provide inappropriate authorizations (in control systems involving actuators), or perform any other attacks that are facilitated by being able to direct traffic towards itself. How is this different from 5.1.1? * Section 5.1.3. Node Resource Spam If an attacker can join a network with any identify, What does "join a network with any identify" mean? then it can continously do so, draining down the resources of the network to store identity and routing information, potentionally forcing legitimate nodes of the network. End of sentence seems to be missing * Section 5.2.1. Routing Exchange Exposure Routing exchanges include both routing information as well as information associated with the establishment and maintenance of neighbor state information. As indicated in Section 3.1, the associated routing information assets may also include device specific resource information, such as memory, remaining power, etc., that may be metrics of the routing protocol. Not sure how "memory" can be a metric of a routing protocol? Does this mean "available memory"? * Section 5.2.2. Routing Information The exposure of this information will allow attachers to gain direct access to the configuration and connectivity of the network thereby exposing routing to targeted attacks on key nodes or links. Since routes and neighbor topology information is stored within the node device,threats or attacks on the confidentiality of the information will apply to the physical device including specified and unspecified internal and external interfaces. Can't really have a "threat on" something - an attack is a physical realization of a threat. Can have a "threat to" something, which means that a threat is nascent and is not realized until processed into an attack Both of these attack vectors are considered a device specific issue, and are out of scope for RPL to defend against. In some applications, physical device compromise may be a real threat and it may be necessary to provide for other devices to react quickly to exclude a compromised device. Exclusion can only be done when a compromised device can be authentically detected otherwise this could form another attack vector, i.e. an attacker could try to convince Node A that Node B is compromised when Node B is actually functioning correctly. Also, this is general compromise, not just that associated with breach of confidentiality * Section 5.3.1. Routing Information Manipulation o Falsification, including overclaiming and misclaiming; Probably worth explaining what "overclaiming" and "misclaiming" mean ... o Byzantine (internal) attacks that permit corruption of routing information in the node even where the node continues to be a validated entity within the network (see, for example, [RFC4593] for further discussions on Byzantine attacks); Isn't that also falsification? Degrees of subtlety to falsification may be worth highlighting; subtle changes would be done to avoid detection * Section 5.3.2. Node Identity Misappropriation o Identity attacks, including Sybil attacks in which a malicious node illegitimately assumes multiple identities; Assumption is that a Sybil attack is an intelligent attack where a device can purport to be many devices and appear legitimate and inject seemingly valid data into the network. Is there a reference? * Section 5.4.1. Routing Exchange Interference or Disruption The forms of attack that allow interference or disruption of routing exchange include: o Routing information replay; This has already been mentioned in the context of node impersonation (which IMHO is where it should live) - maybe state this could be sustained routing information replay? Or is this simply an overload attack? * Section 5.4.2 Network Traffic Forwarding Disruption What's the difference between a "sinkhole" attack and a "blackhole" attack (mentioned earlier)? Also, isn't "sinkhole" better known as "honeypot"? -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | security-threats@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 23 12:10:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34D61A06FA for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:10:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46mGb_nV-Cw5 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:10:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF451A06F7 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:10:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48737 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WHfNP-0003Hi-Ln; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 21:10:15 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:10:15 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/153 Message-ID: <067.cc7b7ee9b48456369af4633c53403c40@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 153 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Resent-To: angel.lozano@upf.edu, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, mischa.dohler@cttc.es, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com, tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, vanesa.daza@upf.edu Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/nDYi1y3dwtHEnoTyaMT91VoZtUc Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #153: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:10:32 -0000 #153: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 6 Section 6.1 Confidentiality Attack Countermeasures Is a "compromised node" the same as a "tampered routing node" - if so, maybe use the same term? Section 6.1.1 Countering Deliberate Exposure Attacks To mitigate the risk of deliberate exposure, the process that communicating nodes use to establish session keys must be peer-to-peer (i.e., between the routing initiating and responding nodes).This helps ensure that neither node is exchaning routing information with another peer without the knowledge of both communicating peers. For a deliberate exposure attack to succeed, the comprised node will need to be more overt and take independent actions in order to disclose the routing information to 3rd party. It doesn't strike me as mandatory that "the process that communicating nodes use to establish session keys must be peer-to-peer". It seems possible for example to disseminate a group key in a secure manner which is subsequently used to authentically (based on shared key knowledge) exchange routing information. Even then, whilst generally understood, it is not entirely clear what "session key" means in this context Section 6.1.2 Countering Passive Wiretapping Attacks A number of deployments, such as [ZigBeeIP] specify no layer-3/RPL encryption or authentication and rely upon similiar security at layer-2. These networks are immune to outside wiretapping attacks, but are particularly vulnerable to passive (and active) attacks through compromises of nodes. Probably need to explain in a bit more detail why. It is really a property of how prolific a key used to secure routing information is within the network. If the same key is used in every node of the network, compromise of a single node provides the ability to wiretap any routing information in the network (or masquerade as another device and inject apparently valid routing information). Conversely, if security is based on pairwise keys between neighbors in all cases, then compromise of a node will only allow wiretapping of routing information with its neighbors. The tradeoff is usually storage space. Another problem with pairwise keys is that it is not possible to use broadcast traffic effectively. Section 6.1.3 Countering Traffic Analysis The only means of fully countering a traffic analysis attack is through the use of tunneling (encapsulation) where encryption is applied across the entirety of the original packet source/destination addresses. Deployments which use layer-2 security that includes encryption already do this for all traffic. Really? I am not sure it would make much difference. Ultimately the L2 src/dest addresses have to be in the clear at some point at the very least to be used to look up relevant security information (unless of course it attempts to unsecure using every key it has until it finds the right one?) Section 6.2.1 Countering Unauthorized Modification Attacks ...o include sequence number under integrity protection. ...to mitigate against replay attacks Section 6.2.2 Countering Overclaiming and Misclaiming Attacks It would still be nice to have a better description of what "overclaim" and "misclaim" actually mean, or an example, or at least a reference -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | security-threats@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 23 12:17:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7691A06FA for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:17:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RCOI_OJUM1Mw for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4CF81A06F9 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48971 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WHfUN-000379-8Z; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 21:17:27 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:17:27 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/154 Message-ID: <067.2d07e9ce6d260fdbb979a3c0574587a5@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 154 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/emKp_FUjOi4X2J1SkfIANlkdF48 Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #154: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 7 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:17:37 -0000 #154: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 7 Reported by Robert Cragie - 02/17/2014 Section 7 Confidentiality Features The assessments and analysis in Section 5 examined all areas of threats and attacks that could impact routing, and the countermeasures presented in Section 6 were reached without confining the consideration to means only available to routing. This section puts the results into perspective and provides a framework for addressing the derived set of security objectives that must be met by the routing protocol(s) specified by the RPL Working Group. I thought the idea was there was no framework being presented in this security threats draft? There is no RPL working group 7.2. Integrity Features While logging is critical, it is often impossible. Why is it "often impossible"? Where is the justification for such a claim? Section 7.3. Availability Features o MAY restrict neighborhood cardinality; ... o MAY use geographic information for flow control. What "MAY" do all the above things? Routing? It doesn't read correctly. Section 7.4. Key Management While RPL has secure modes, but some modes are impractical without use of public key cryptography believed to be too expensive by many. RPL layer-3 security will often depend upon existing LLN layer-2 security mechanisms, which provides for node authentication, but little in the way of node authorization. Not necessarily - again, I do not understand why L2 security implies "something less". If anything, L2 security is better as the integrity code covers more of the PDU (i.e. the MAC addresses) making e.g. wormhole attacks harder as it is harder to spoof addresses. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 23 12:19:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9431A0701 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:19:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MQPUWJvGN15N for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4951A06F0 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49233 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WHfWI-00047l-Q5; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 21:19:26 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:19:26 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/155 Message-ID: <067.4659dcd26e0386f2f368b2f9adf0b460@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 155 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Resent-To: angel.lozano@upf.edu, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, mischa.dohler@cttc.es, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com, tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, vanesa.daza@upf.edu Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/mz9pZA8eH8kUDi-rPIa1JZVJq6Q Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #155: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - LLN Device Security Model X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:19:36 -0000 #155: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - LLN Device Security Model Reported by Robert Cragie - 02/17/2014 Section 7.5.1 Mechanisms and Operations Figure 5: LLN Device Security Model I don't really get this diagram - it isn't really telling me much. If anything, it is missing the point made earlier that security required for the application domain determines the level of security for routing and the stack. Even then, there may be different levels of security required in the application domain which would dictate a different approach to security. For example, if the LLN is only ever going to be "best effort" then there may not be a need to provide stringent protection on the routing protocol, whereas the application layer may in itself require a high degree of privacy between peer nodes in the LLN (e.g. a shared mesh) -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | security-threats@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 23 12:22:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD261A06F2 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:22:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6JCcoumQK8Hu for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9387D1A06F0 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49609 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WHfYm-000249-MP; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 21:22:00 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:22:00 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/156 Message-ID: <067.c601d465cb4dd279e545d31290863daf@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 156 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Resent-To: angel.lozano@upf.edu, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, mischa.dohler@cttc.es, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com, tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, vanesa.daza@upf.edu Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/6Ay4x8zCFZoUd2R8neVhqRqGmkI Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #156: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 - RPL control message are broadcast X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:22:16 -0000 #156: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 - RPL control message are broadcast Reported by Robert Cragie - 02/17/2014 7.2. Integrity Features The integrity of routing information provides the basis for ensuring that the function of the routing protocol is achieved and maintained. To protect integrity, RPL must either run using only the Secure versions of the messages, or must run over a layer-2 that uses channel binding between node identity and transmissions. (i.e.: a layer-2 which has an identical network-wide transmission key can not defend against many attacks) So how do we fix the conundrum that many significant RPL control messages (e.g DIO) are broadcast, which in link layer terms typically means they are transmitted using LL broadcast address without acknowledgements? We can't use pairwise link keys. Saying a network wide key "cannot defend against many attacks" is a poor generalization without any real analysis behind it. If a network-wide key has been distributed in a secure fashion and the confidentiality of the key on every node can be guaranteed, then it is a perfectly legitimate way to provide confidentiality, data origin authentication and integrity protection, especially for broadcast messages. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | security-threats@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 23 12:24:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB961A070C for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:24:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jkty6LzZ04bf for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5981A0707 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:24:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49666 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WHfay-0000Dz-OG; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 21:24:16 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:24:16 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/153#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.e4cf3d777526d3d1d6d4aac70ed2f6cf@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.cc7b7ee9b48456369af4633c53403c40@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 153 In-Reply-To: <067.cc7b7ee9b48456369af4633c53403c40@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Resent-To: angel.lozano@upf.edu, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, mischa.dohler@cttc.es, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com, tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, vanesa.daza@upf.edu Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/0Zwn9cZvPZv7A5VmDPfi1LUqEgo Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #153: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:24:23 -0000 #153: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 6 Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): The issues listed above were reported by Robert Cragie - 02/17/2014 -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | security-threats@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Sun Feb 23 20:43:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237711A07DB for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:43:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.323 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VpRGXvvfs_B4 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:43:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x22c.google.com (mail-vc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9768A1A016A for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:43:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id lf12so5352593vcb.17 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:43:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FWvPQUdrTi7APEbrsuP/fA8IQFzKcpxfnDLdqWZk4oM=; b=sq2DJL2q6a2CKfEgtsWUqNijBJ30WCXAs/Glgh21WLT6GTUrFI2J3TnoZaeAjg0OU5 cVZrFkosUpuDX5gzmPq/eDMB8QkhisYn+mnTCUcCLR9V1pMoy2JeJabQANXLGEnP50FT y8iJRs1TsWvcsOHQAED6KaTkyeMH4HfB+JOj09g+cLF+RawWa43jKt7f5q1vdqFq9EYz ISLT4ZdxZZmraiRf1bIR2QMflD/1/WdV6H4ikIBbKOH82FzDWEmHfwlG6r8I4C87hAQ0 CP55vr9BolCrYbopI2JfDZmHJypCbYZiAM2ScwOLU0SH2cTOb/elmONKAgEkYWLYZGiL 3tiw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.139.198 with SMTP id f6mr11048052vcu.47.1393216991022; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:43:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.49.68 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:43:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 01:43:10 -0300 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343940d8522204f31f9bce Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/iKRgc_RRrZfnL2DK3MHjEzxKZ7Q Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] IETF89 - Minute taker - Jabber Scribe X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 24 Feb 2014 04:43:13 -0000 --047d7b343940d8522204f31f9bce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, We would like to know please, who desire to help in London as Minute taker or Jabber Scribe. We appreciate your help. Thank you in advance, Michael & Ines. --047d7b343940d8522204f31f9bce Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi,

We would like to know please, who desire to help in London as Minute taker or Jabber Scribe.

We appreciate your help.

Thank you in advance,

Michael & Ines.
--047d7b343940d8522204f31f9bce-- From nobody Mon Feb 24 04:27:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14ED61A039E; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:42:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FUbfAmHrrTKv; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:42:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2607:f170:8000:1500::d3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DA91A033F; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:42:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id DB4857FC39D; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:41:59 -0800 (PST) To: lei.mou.uu@gmail.com, wintert@acm.org, pthubert@cisco.com, abr@sdesigns.dk, jhui@archrock.com, kelsey@ember.com, pal@cs.stanford.edu, kpister@dustnetworks.com, rstruik.ext@gmail.com, jpv@cisco.com, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20140224084159.DB4857FC39D@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:41:59 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/pMDc6Z6x93RgkjNOJa9qackX670 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 04:27:56 -0800 Cc: roll@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Roll] [Errata Verified] RFC6550 (3895) X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 24 Feb 2014 08:42:02 -0000 The following errata report has been verified for RFC6550, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6550&eid=3895 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Editorial Reported by: Lei Mou Date Reported: 2014-02-17 Verified by: Adrian Farrel (IESG) Section: 9.8 Original Text ------------- 1. The DODAG Parent Address subfield of a Transmit Information option MUST be empty. 5. ... When a storing node generates a DAO, it uses the stored state of DAOs it has received to produce a set of RPL Target options and their associated Transmit Information options. Corrected Text -------------- 1. The DODAG Parent Address subfield of a Transit Information option MUST be empty. 5. ... When a storing node generates a DAO, it uses the stored state of DAOs it has received to produce a set of RPL Target options and their associated Transit Information options. Notes ----- There is no "Transmit Information option", It should be Transit Information option. -------------------------------------- RFC6550 (draft-ietf-roll-rpl-19) -------------------------------------- Title : RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks Publication Date : March 2012 Author(s) : T. Winter, Ed., P. Thubert, Ed., A. Brandt, J. Hui, R. Kelsey, P. Levis, K. Pister, R. Struik, JP. Vasseur, R. Alexander Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Mon Feb 24 05:27:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590E81A040C for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:26:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ChjsF2-24597 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E061A0046 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37100 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WHvYI-0001bJ-Q0; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:26:34 +0100 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: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami.all@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:26:34 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/136#comment:3 Message-ID: <082.a433c3333f894d49f461bd5ad4afb3d9@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.78cf5d635bca77cded1fb433c133c835@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 136 In-Reply-To: <067.78cf5d635bca77cded1fb433c133c835@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami.all@tools.ietf.org, 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 Resent-To: daniel.popa@itron.com, johui@cisco.com, kazuya.monden.vw@hitachi.com, laurent.toutain@telecom-bretagne.eu, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, , matthew.gillmore@itron.com, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, ruben.salazar@landisgyr.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/GFaYCltJpE4ibjR3EYH1877hNsQ Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #136: - draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami - Add a section of the Security Considerations for each instance where the RPL security mechanism are not to be used X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:26:59 -0000 #136: - draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami - Add a section of the Security Considerations for each instance where the RPL security mechanism are not to be used Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08441.html From: Michael Richardson Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:06:25 -0500 draft-ietf-roll-security-threats. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll- mariainesrobles@gmail.com | applicability- Type: defect | ami.all@tools.ietf.org Priority: major | Status: new Component: applicability-ami | Milestone: Severity: Active WG Document | Version: Keywords: | Resolution: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Tue Feb 25 05:39:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3267A1A06E9 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:39:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDOMMwEwai6p for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:39:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF031A06E7 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:39:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39432 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WIIEf-0000q0-G6; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:39:49 +0100 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: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:39:49 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/151#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.32657501fc70d8f4b2bb5b37cf5f2e9e@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.0c276852a543ee4b2a1cc06f0aaf384f@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 151 In-Reply-To: <067.0c276852a543ee4b2a1cc06f0aaf384f@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mcr@sandelman.ca, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/TPBPWdOWvLHIxbpHa33y3GkVDSQ Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #151: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 1-4 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:39:57 -0000 #151: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 1-4 Changes (by mcr@sandelman.ca): * cc: mcr@sandelman.ca (added) * owner: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org => mcr@sandelman.ca * status: new => assigned -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: mcr@sandelman.ca Type: defect | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Tue Feb 25 05:51:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DCA91A06D8 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G31O7-_sMLjp for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2111A06D2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39940 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WIIPV-0004CS-Kp; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:51:01 +0100 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: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:01 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/150#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.6bc60de868b641f577d197bfcd577fe7@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.3ddb78c0b47d80e1d4f03a63dc19cb3c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 150 In-Reply-To: <067.3ddb78c0b47d80e1d4f03a63dc19cb3c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mcr@sandelman.ca, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/wGX3D4WG4UHrTwT5X7ktCFnXpNc Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #150: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 - Editorial comments X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:07 -0000 #150: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 - Editorial comments Changes (by mcr@sandelman.ca): * owner: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org => mcr@sandelman.ca * status: new => assigned -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: mcr@sandelman.ca Type: defect | Status: assigned Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Tue Feb 25 05:51:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16901A06E7 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nHPAuuDsGzgo for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A071A06D2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39945 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WIIPj-00051W-2u; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:51:15 +0100 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: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:15 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/152#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.1cbdc6bd570e2342b0c6e2cdbb79ae8b@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.ea0f5fb7c02a51fe7d13f9cc66287cad@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 152 In-Reply-To: <067.ea0f5fb7c02a51fe7d13f9cc66287cad@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mcr@sandelman.ca, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/Rv5abnc1-T2fe1tOJPbojkkeIR4 Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #152: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 5 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:19 -0000 #152: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 5 Changes (by mcr@sandelman.ca): * owner: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org => mcr@sandelman.ca * status: new => assigned -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: mcr@sandelman.ca Type: defect | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Tue Feb 25 05:51:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9991A06EF for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fffc92rfUKi6 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910F71A06E8 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39953 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WIIPq-0005aa-5c; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:51:22 +0100 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: mcr@sandelman.ca, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:22 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/153#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.356ca8de0de8906f88e432e430a36308@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.cc7b7ee9b48456369af4633c53403c40@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 153 In-Reply-To: <067.cc7b7ee9b48456369af4633c53403c40@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mcr@sandelman.ca, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/xP2QP2ZyN206aSFc1LNuJ_l_X30 Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #153: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:29 -0000 #153: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 6 Changes (by mcr@sandelman.ca): * owner: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org => mcr@sandelman.ca * status: new => assigned -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: mcr@sandelman.ca Type: defect | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Tue Feb 25 05:51:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96E51A06E6 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ub1abUDpicMO for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65041A06EF for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39962 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WIIPz-0005nY-BU; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:51:31 +0100 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: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:31 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/154#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.330c4057f386655fb2fe0b9df7dab4d1@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.2d07e9ce6d260fdbb979a3c0574587a5@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 154 In-Reply-To: <067.2d07e9ce6d260fdbb979a3c0574587a5@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mcr@sandelman.ca, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/KrRPPfBLWOfUfzgJN2Ds2Wz2GNQ Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #154: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 7 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:40 -0000 #154: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 7 Changes (by mcr@sandelman.ca): * owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org => mcr@sandelman.ca * status: new => assigned -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: mcr@sandelman.ca Type: defect | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Tue Feb 25 05:51:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF6251A06F1 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EuEHZp_a-vek for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600A91A06D8 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39974 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WIIQF-0005pP-Nt; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:51:47 +0100 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: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:47 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/155#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.528707c2917b022e93fae7f1df55c537@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.4659dcd26e0386f2f368b2f9adf0b460@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 155 In-Reply-To: <067.4659dcd26e0386f2f368b2f9adf0b460@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mcr@sandelman.ca, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/hCcd14fOs1GMXMtKs9WrtyAFlSM Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #155: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - LLN Device Security Model X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:54 -0000 #155: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - LLN Device Security Model Changes (by mcr@sandelman.ca): * owner: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org => mcr@sandelman.ca * status: new => assigned -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: mcr@sandelman.ca Type: defect | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Tue Feb 25 05:52:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF201A06E6 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:52:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j-vTGAW0QITT for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C11A1A06F1 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39981 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WIIQM-0005pg-SH; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:51:54 +0100 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: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:51:54 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/156#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.1999a1b99cd8146c2928bf6d63fc8608@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.c601d465cb4dd279e545d31290863daf@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 156 In-Reply-To: <067.c601d465cb4dd279e545d31290863daf@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mcr@sandelman.ca, robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/dNPMGEFPoDvd42FCxu7i0Y8ZcXk Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #156: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 - RPL control message are broadcast X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:52:05 -0000 #156: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-06 - RPL control message are broadcast Changes (by mcr@sandelman.ca): * owner: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats@tools.ietf.org => mcr@sandelman.ca * status: new => assigned -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: mcr@sandelman.ca Type: defect | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From nobody Thu Feb 27 12:28:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803361A0645 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:28:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DXtnvYW3smeW for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x233.google.com (mail-vc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F62F1A068C for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id lh14so3066827vcb.38 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:28:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=t5I0YDUphZVPoq7doE26KQIpVK21RsQ3L+Irnl9Y1RU=; b=EUGz5i24aw6dCMcgzUrVKjJrsn4S7VYhwnmyi6/0ngS/4HQirCPJObA081HuKqZmDe xz8JyQ4h9Im4gFC+W5HgGti9TXc82QCrC/yyI46IdHQUxnKI8aEinEM8EsLjTI0Z/v0O LopT9FgQrPypY2hCe6omPwqDVMydOCiMpmBxrz0jNv+K5ti2XPUqaKab/iUm4H1iYe0q zp4i4v6GN7slYEA4WV67EKFMWcTVZnrfrFVf8m6oRAjgHN8jmEhDWX5a/BVQ6Hxt4ns8 QMAg2eaS+kMlqx7JDGOvDJpKzFJ6MU0ZNmDrG89vVS3j/AHq3zu4O4irr12SqGtiaJzk 17vw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.188.10 with SMTP id cy10mr2194025vcb.36.1393532902374; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:28:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.221.16.3 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:28:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:28:22 -0300 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfea07ca1038d04f36929e6 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/N9lJ9TKTC_fCzS47l6EdMEz4sRM Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] IETF89 - Slides - Updates DL X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 27 Feb 2014 20:28:25 -0000 --047d7bfea07ca1038d04f36929e6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, This is a kindly reminder, Friday 28th is the deadline that we accept updates for the current slides, Current Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-roll-1.pdf Thank you in advance, Michael & Ines. --047d7bfea07ca1038d04f36929e6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

This is a kindly reminder,=A0=

Friday 28th is the deadline that we a= ccept updates for the current slides,


Thank you in advance,

<= /div>
Michael & Ines.=A0
--047d7bfea07ca1038d04f36929e6-- From nobody Fri Feb 28 12:12:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965D11A0320 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:12:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZLvB9rbwYk1H for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:12:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x230.google.com (mail-ve0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4431A031F for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:12:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id cz12so1250291veb.21 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:12:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=20tEluuQ9PkhZB8/3Ouvam9j0wKovDvQGqBiZXJyAS0=; b=ogK10gTfxnkes0DwzyqA/mq7fOeeq1Q06b3aViLuBy+NixZGEqO7i0cg/XE43Y1ZSj 7r+dWn0yhNsH6+mX9lt1QiqFFDwmCLEATID4gIXh1QBZO4i6/9PqnfkqVlvTlFHVGhFv vc92qXdENFD1TWlgKaxU+ooBxnuN+kwrHX4TqR49OQECHlE8fkwAt3EbyUc9zci4f9fg wLZCJxcmFky2/oiZIgsV+ELTTcMk2o00cby4qLLO1vvGJe4KHAS1cENcG1nOTfFxB/Dw TlzQW5KtO69RTSKX5Y/brKIfv3I6YopKESle95qATTF0H2iMgIEbOO2J91ZJ9QxMCgug 3pjw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.77.204 with SMTP id u12mr3935168vew.29.1393618366842; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:12:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.221.16.3 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:12:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:12:46 -0300 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0b56b54ee204f37d0fa8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/wsV27UgPiWNV5MLwvZPzgkYIvvY Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] IETF 89 - Slides - final version X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 28 Feb 2014 20:12:53 -0000 --089e013d0b56b54ee204f37d0fa8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Please find the final version of the slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-roll-1.pdf Thank you very much to all the authors for delivering the slides and the updates on time. We really appreciate it. Kind Regards, Michael & Ines. --089e013d0b56b54ee204f37d0fa8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=A0

Please find the final version of = the slides:


Thank you very much to all the author= s for delivering the slides and the updates on time. We really appreciate i= t.

Kind Regards,

Michael & Ines.
--089e013d0b56b54ee204f37d0fa8--