From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed May 1 13:17:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85E621F9986 for ; Wed, 1 May 2013 13:17:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s6QtusT0nxGB for ; Wed, 1 May 2013 13:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E2621F9974 for ; Wed, 1 May 2013 13:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A522016D; Wed, 1 May 2013 16:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 9931063A62; Wed, 1 May 2013 16:16:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882CA63A61; Wed, 1 May 2013 16:16:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: roll@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk In-Reply-To: <016701ce469f$c480e8d0$4d82ba70$@olddog.co.uk> References: <011e01ce4501$482f0d10$d88d2730$@olddog.co.uk> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA36138A8@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <016701ce469f$c480e8d0$4d82ba70$@olddog.co.uk> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) 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: "'Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)'" Subject: [Roll] Trickle Multicast Option modification update X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 20:17:26 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ralph Droms has brought up a concern that the the current value in the IANA registry for the MPL Option Type in the IPv6 "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" of 0x4d is inconsistent with the documented value of 0x6d. (The difference is the chg bit should be 1) http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xml Ralph suggests that the early allocation process be used to correct the value in the IANA registry as soon as possible, in advance of publication of the document. We have discussed this value change in the previous weeks, and as there was no objection to the change, I am requesting Adrian to bring this to the IESG. =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) iQCVAwUAUYF4MYqHRg3pndX9AQLoKwQAuDoM1A8AkUviQmrfpgyii91JPbN6jg43 pmTY2hsq/jhjCWY+FoRAHoXBkUl7mX56j4TliMGsJOxW2TaR3FhU82a6yLpKyy/y nsvSCEfLMK52/1gsZCiR7//kSeIT2GIochU0NTN3jha1SqWSjmJK59mRT7N6GsoQ Clnb4mNe5Yk= =j8Tc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 09:31:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED18521F9616 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:31:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id biLnLKwoZk4i for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6254C21F9613 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50610 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ua7Gl-0002eH-V0; Wed, 08 May 2013 18:31:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 16:31:07 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/115 Message-ID: <067.b8704d3db60284c62fffde3d26abf9e1@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 115 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #115: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Editorial Comments X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 16:31:29 -0000 #115: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Editorial Comments Comments done by Stephen Kent (SK), source:[http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03712.html] and [http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03848.html][[BR]] Comments done by Sean Turner (ST), source:[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security- threats/ballot/] === Section 3.1:[[BR]] * r/components and mechanisms/assets, points of access, and process -- by ST === Section 3.2: [[BR]] * The introduction of the term “misuse” under the heading of integrity strikes me as inappropriate. I disagree that non-repudiation might be relevant here. This security service (defined in ISO 7498-2) applies to people and organizations, not to devices. --by SK[[BR]] * s3.2: Adding "misuse" in the integrity strikes me as wrong. It's about determining whether data has changed. The examples used are about delayed or replayed messages which seem to be better characterized as availability.--by ST === Section 3.4: [[BR]] * 3.4: several terms used here (misappropriated, legitimacy, and truthfulness) still represent poor choices of terminology, and should be fixed--by SK[[BR]] * s3.4: How about: In conjunction, it is necessary to be assured of the authenticity and legitimacy of the participants of the routing neighbor discovery process; NEW: In conjunction, it is necessary to be assured that authorized peers authenticate themselves during the routing neighbor discovery process;--BY ST[[BR]] * s3.4: I think you could drop eavesdropping and just say unauthorized exposure--BY ST === Section 4 [[BR]] * 4 – The use of the term “misappropriated” is odd (misappropriation in section 2.2 as well), at best. Are the authors referring to unauthorized use? The term “legitimacy,” applied to participants is not helpful. Do the authors mean ‘authorized” here? The term “truthfulness” appears here, and is equally unhelpful. How about “accurate?” I’m beginning to wonder how carefully the authors read 4593!--by SK[[BR]] === Section 4.1 [[BR]] * 4.1- the authors should use technical terminology from 4949, since they went to the trouble to cite in various places, e.g., replace “sniffing” with “passive wiretapping,” both here and throughput the document.--by SK === Section 4.2 [[BR]] * 4.2 – here too, addressing integrity and authentication separately might result in a clearer discussion. For example, “identity misappropriation” is really a violation of an authentication guarantee. There is mention of “freshness” which might have been addressed by using the 7498-2 terminology “connection-orietned integrity.”--by SK[[BR]] * 4.2.2: identity misappropriation is really about peer authentication and masquerading--by ST === Section 5.1.3 [[BR]] * 5.1.3 - TA is always a passive attack, so the description here “… may be passive…” is wrong. --by SK === Section 5.2.3 [[BR]] * 5.2.3 – “liveliness” -> “liveness” --by SK === Section 5.3.2 [[BR]] * 5.3.2 – “Overload attacks are a form of DoS attack in that a malicious node overloads the network with irrelevant traffic, thereby draining the nodes' energy store quicker” -> “Overload attacks are a form of DoS attack in which a malicious node overloads the network with irrelevant traffic, thereby draining the nodes' energy store more quickly.” This sort of attack is not one against routing, unless the overload is the result of processing routing traffic?--by SK === Section 6 [[BR]] * 6 – I find the opening sentence to be very confusing: “The assessments and analysis in Section 4 examined all areas of threats and attacks that could impact routing, and the countermeasures presented in Section 5 were reached without confining the consideration to means only available to routing.”--by SK === Section 6.1 [[BR]] * 6.1 - “… and improve vulnerability against other more direct attacks …” -> “… and reduce vulnerabilities relative to other attacks …--by SK === Section 6.2 [[BR]] * 6.2 – Did you really mean to say “ … integrity of the encrypted message …”? Generally one applies integrity mechanisms to the plaintext message, prior to encryption. The requirement to verify “message sequence” is grammatically incorrect and ambiguous. Routing protocols may not require delivery of every routing message. If the requirement here is anti-replay, say so. Also, the phrase “unintentional Byzantine” seems odd to me. It does not appear earlier, in the discussion of Byzantine threats. The common notion of a Byzantine attack is that the actors are doing so with intent. --by SK === Section 6.4 [[BR]] * 6.4 – A more appropriate title would be “Cryptographic Key Management.” --by SK[[BR]] * s6.4: r/Security Key Management / Key Management -- BY ST === Section 6.5/6.5.1 [[BR]] * 6.5 – “ … diversified needs …” -> “… diverse needs…”--by SK === Section 8 [[BR]] * “…mechanisms to be used to deal with each threat is specified …” -> “…mechanisms to be used to deal with each threat are specified …”--by SK -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: Editorial -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 10:29:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8814F21F926E for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:29:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k5UmKXb7vA8u for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E743C21F90B9 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54853 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ua8AP-0006pu-Fq; Wed, 08 May 2013 19:28:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:28:37 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/116 Message-ID: <067.d6cfe14f83c6ca306e7f0311d9ee1435@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 116 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #116: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include/fix/verify definitions/terms X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:29:03 -0000 #116: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include/fix/verify definitions/terms Comments done by Stephen Kent (SK), source:[http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03712.html] and [http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03848.html][[BR]] Comments done by Sean Turner (ST), source: [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security- threats/ballot/] === Section 3[[BR]] * Section 3 gets off to a poor start. The definition of “security” introduced here is too generic, and quickly needs to be qualified to add notions of authorization, authentication, confidentiality, and timeliness. --by SK === Section 3.1[[BR]] * 3.1 Also there's a database but it's not listed is that part of "memory"? Isn't "node" without a qualifier missing too? -- by ST === Section 3.3[[BR]] * 3.3 – The phrase “sleepy node” is introduced, but was not defined in the terminology section.--by SK[[BR]] * s3.3: maybe: sleepy node: A node that is not functional, but immediately available.--by ST === Section 4[[BR]] * s4: We need to either define the threat sources or point to RFC 4593. There's really only two outsiders and byzantine.--by ST === Section 4.1[[BR]] * 4.1- The term “traffic analysis” is much broader than what the authors suggest here. Even without access to headers per se, one can examine the size of messages and the frequency of transmission, and both of these are examples of traffic analysis.--by SK === Section 4.4.1/4.2[[BR]] * 4.2 –The terms “overclaiming” and “misclaiming” are introduced here (4.4.1), without being defined earlier. --by SK === Section 4.3[[BR]] * 4.3- “Selective forwarding,” “wormhole,” and “sinkhole” attacks are mentioned, without definition. Using a diagram to illustrate these attacks is not a substitute for concise definitions. In 4.3.4 “overload” attacks are noted, but not defined. Also, selective forwarding isn’t a routing attack, so why is it included here?--by SK === Section 4.3.1[[BR]] * - 4.3.1: overload attack mentioned, w/o definition-- by SK === Section 4.3.2[[BR]] * - 4.3.2: selective forwarding, wormhole and sinkhole attacks are mentioned, w/o definitions, still-- by SK === Section 5[[BR]] * 5. – Use of encryption does not counter deliberate exposure attacks. Use of encryption, and authentication, is a counter to exposure of routing data via passive wiretapping.-- by SK[[BR]] === Section 5.1.1[[BR]] * 5.1.1: still incorrect assertions re countering deliberate exposure, i.e., no mention of authorization-- by SK[[BR]] * s5.1.1: encryption does not counter deliberate exposure attacks.-- by ST === Section 5.1.3[[BR]] * 5.1.3 - TA is broader in scope than the authors stated earlier, and thus the proposed countermeasures are a subset of what might be considered. The discussion here seems to diverge from the routing security focus of the document, when the authors discuss TA issues relevant to end-user traffic flows.-- by SK === Section 6.1[[BR]] * 6.1 - What does “privacy” mean here? This is the first use of the term in this document.-- by SK -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 10:42:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0973121F90B1 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:42:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1m2v6-tQFyPe for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B1C21F909A for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55517 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ua8Ni-00012Y-AL; Wed, 08 May 2013 19:42:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:42:22 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/117 Message-ID: <067.2ab3aa03f106c42294a1c316eb2b7bc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 117 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #117: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify/include references X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:42:27 -0000 #117: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify/include references Comments done by Stephen Kent (SK), source:[http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03712.html] and [http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03848.html][[BR]] === Section 3[[BR]] * There are references to various academia papers, which may be appropriate. I note, however, that other such papers that characterize routing security in terms of “correct” operation of a routing protocol, e.g., in the BGP context, have not been cited, and do not appear to be part of the methodology here.-- by SK === Section 5.2.3[[BR]] * 5.2.3 –Also, the work cited here [Wander2005] is not bad, but “NanoECC: testing the limits of elliptic curve cryptography in sensor networks, 2008” is more up to date.-- by SK === Section 6.4[[BR]] * The reference to RFC 3029 is old, and refers to an experimental protocol. I'd suggest RFC 5055, which is much more recent, and is a proposed standard. “ … which supports several alternative private, public, or Diffie-Hellman …” Diffie-Hellman is a public-key scheme!-- by SK -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 10:49:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FCEC21F92F7 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:49:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ApzdWjkpk1R for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A2721F9265 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55950 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ua8U3-0003hJ-8t; Wed, 08 May 2013 19:48:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:48:55 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/118 Message-ID: <067.e065627dee974c2732f31a5720ca5c91@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 118 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #118: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify relation with RFC 1636/4949 - Considerations on ROLL Security X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:49:04 -0000 #118: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify relation with RFC 1636/4949 - Considerations on ROLL Security Comments done by Sean Turner (ST), source: [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security- threats/ballot/] s3: After reading the first paragraph in s3 and comparing it to the output of the IAB workshop (RFC1636) I'm left wondering if it's doing the same thing. RFC 1636 says: Securing the routing protocols seems to be a straightforward engineering task. The workshop concluded the following. a) All routing information exchanges should be authenticated between neighboring routers. b) The sources of all route information should be authenticated. c) Although authenticating the authority of an injector of route information is feasible, authentication of operations on that routing information (e.g., aggregation) requires further consideration. S3 closes with: In the case of routing security the focus is directed towards the elements associated with the establishment and maintenance of network connectivity. The word focus kind of threw me and later in s3.4 you list the fundamental functions of a routing protocol. Is the threats or the things you're trying to secure. And, as Steve pointed out in the secdir review most think of routing security is ensuring the proper functioning of the routing protocol. And, you say you're using definitions from RFC 4949 but the one for "security". Later in the paragraph you have "authentication, and potentially integrity, and confidentiality" kind of hangs there after authorization. Authentication, integrity, and confidentiality of what? Also if you're going to do authentication I guess you might not need integrity, but I'd sure like to know how that happens. Maybe some tweaks could solve all this: Routing security, in essence, is about ensuring the routing protocol operates correctly [insert reference if there is one]. It entails measures to ensure ... and then (injectors was the IAB's word and maybe we can come up with a better one - or we define a new term in the definitions section) State changes would thereby involve not only authorization of injector's actions, authentication of injectors, authentication, integrity, and potentially confidentiality of routing data, but also proper order of state changes through timeliness, since seriously delayed state changes, such as commands or updates of routing tables, may negatively impact system operation. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 10:59:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1E321F90B1 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:59:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nKysDPSHdvMH for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B5021F8EBC for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:59:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56956 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ua8eW-0007av-Sd; Wed, 08 May 2013 19:59:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:59:44 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/119 Message-ID: <067.8571ad6f4d633472ef48478791cc6332@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 119 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #119: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify abstraction/superficial terms X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:59:50 -0000 #119: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify abstraction/superficial terms Comments done by Stephen Kent (SK),source:[http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03712.html] and [http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03848.html] === Section 3.1[[BR]] * Verify abstraction/superficial terms === Section 5.2.1[[BR]] * 5.2.1 – the discussion here is very superficial, not as thorough as the subsections in 5.1. === Section 5.2.2[[BR]] * 5.2.2 – This discussion is very superficial as well. === Section 5.2.3[[BR]] * 5.2.3 –The discussion of the use of public key technology vs. symmetric cryptographic mechanisms for authentication is vastly oversimplified, and thus not very useful. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: applicability-ami | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 11:04:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA26121F9029 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:04:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8h7q6Bn1mG0h for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0464E21F9057 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57606 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ua8jU-0002sE-8Y; Wed, 08 May 2013 20:04:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:04:52 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/120 Message-ID: <067.7b6cb03ea57fd43aa95087051a713603@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 120 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #120: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify the use of the asset with RFC 4949 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:04:54 -0000 #120: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify the use of the asset with RFC 4949 Comments done by Sean Turner (ST),source: [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security- threats/ballot/] === Section 3.1[[BR]] s3/3.1: in s3: A security assessment can therefore begin with a focus on the assets or elements of information that may be the target of the state changes and the access points in... and in s3.1 you say: An asset implies an important system component (including information, process, or physical resource), But asset is also defined in RFC 4949 as: $ asset (I) A system resource that is (a) required to be protected by an information system's security policy, (b) intended to be protected by a countermeasure, or (c) required for a system's mission. resource is better than component in my mind (see definition in RFC 4949) so how about the following in s3: A security assessment can therefore begin with a focus on the assets [RFC4949] that may be the target of the state changes and the access points in… and in s3.1: An asset is an important system resource (including information, process, or physical resource), -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 11:09:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D815F21F923C for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:09:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bg7GSeTjAmJ9 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376AC21F9184 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57769 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ua8ns-00005K-Fn; Wed, 08 May 2013 20:09:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:09:24 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/121 Message-ID: <067.966e013d1f392cdfd7a3db95de968ef6@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 121 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #121: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Provide a pointer to the concept of control plane and specify it in the figure X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:09:27 -0000 #121: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Provide a pointer to the concept of control plane and specify it in the figure Comments done by Sean Turner (ST),source: [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security- threats/ballot/] === Section 3.1[[BR]] * Please provide a pointer to the concept of "control plane". Would RFC 6192 do as a pointer or maybe add definitions in the definitions section: control plane: Supports routing and management functions. forward plane: Responsible for receiving a packet on an incoming interface, performing a lookup to identify the packet's next hop and determine the best outgoing interface towards the destination, and forwarding the packet out through the appropriate outgoing interface. Also, are we just talking about control plane security here? If that's true can we say way, way sooner - like in the abstract/introduction? abstract: A systematic approach is used in defining and evaluating the security threats for the control plane. and then else where as appropriate[[BR]] * s3.1: It's worth reiterating that the Figure is just about the control plane: All of this is done on the control plane. (assuming it is) -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 11:18:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8580921F9121 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:18:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Z-5gJTH62rv for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D5921F90AC for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58402 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ua8wb-0007Vc-0m; Wed, 08 May 2013 20:18:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:18:25 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/122 Message-ID: <067.0cf091d70127989abbccb3b339b77920@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 122 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #122: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- CIA model fails to differentiate authentication, integrity, and authorization X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:18:28 -0000 #122: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- CIA model fails to differentiate authentication, integrity, and authorization Comments done by Stephen Kent (SK),source:[http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03712.html] and [http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03848.html][[BR]] Comments done by Sean Turner (ST),source: [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security- threats/ballot/] === Section 3.1/3.2[[BR]] * 3.2 – One shortcoming of the “CIA” model is that it fails to differentiate authentication from integrity, and it also does not explicitly include authorization. This shortcoming shows up in the discussion on page 9. Use of the IS0 7498-2 security service terms might have yielded a better outcome, although that list also is not perfect. The introduction of the term “misuse” under the heading of integrity strikes me as inappropriate. I disagree that non-repudiation might be relevant here. This security service (defined in ISO 6498-2) applies to people and organizations, not to devices.-- by SK[[BR]] * s1/s3/3.1/3.2: The CIA model is one that's great, but in s3 your list security services list starts off with "proper authorization for actions" and then talk about authentication next. Clearly authorization and authentication need to be added in to s3.2 -no? Any chance of just changing to the 5 (confidentiality, integrity, authentication, access control, and non-repudiation) listed in ISO 7498-2? You ever get a stable international reference. You don't need to have that awkward lead-in about non-repudiation in s3.2. and you'd only need to add one availability? If you're going to stick with CIA then please add authorization and authentication in s3.2.-- by ST[[BR]] === Section 5.2[[BR]] * 5.2 – Again, distinguishing among integrity, authentication, and authorization might make for a clearer discussion. Adherence to the “CAI” model is causing these problems.-- by SK -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 12:08:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1614221F90FC for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 12:08:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4+x52GKiKNce for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 12:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB0821F901A for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33517 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ua9iz-0001s7-Eu; Wed, 08 May 2013 21:08:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 19:08:25 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/123 Message-ID: <067.d644fb3923627c74902ac1af75d198bf@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 123 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #123: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Specify how on is non-repudiation going to apply to the tiny little assets X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 19:08:32 -0000 #123: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Specify how on is non- repudiation going to apply to the tiny little assets Comments done by Sean Turner (ST),source: [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security- threats/ballot/] === Section 3.2[[BR]] How on is non-repudiation going to apply to these tiny little assets? I see how I, a person, can repudiate that I sent a message and I can see how you, as a person, can repudiate something else. Are two nodes going to be claiming one sent something while the other will say no I didn't? I hear all the time we can't do this and we can't do that because these are so constrained but you're going to log and capture on-going messages - color me confused? I think you should say non-repudiation applies to people not to device-to-device/automated communications. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 13:47:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1322E21F8E56 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:47:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GvomjIJW6EVv for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F9E21F901A for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39949 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UaBH7-0006a8-Ky; Wed, 08 May 2013 22:47:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 20:47:45 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/124 Message-ID: <067.fdab363d655b1902d82f78e9aebff2a7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 124 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #124: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include further explanation X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 20:47:51 -0000 #124: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include further explanation Comments done by Stephen Kent (SK),source:[http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03712.html] and [http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03848.html][[BR]] Comments done by Sean Turner (ST),source: [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security- threats/ballot/] === Section 3.2[[BR]] * s3.2: I thought this was about the control plane? Why does the availability paragraph talk about forwarding "services"?-- by ST[[BR]] * s3.2: The last paragraph has to be more tightly coupled to ROLL. I'm afraid of a food fight between the various routing security groups that are doing work in this space because they're not all implementing enforcement mechanisms for the services described in s3.2. -- by ST === Section 3.3[[BR]] * s3.3: What does this mean and why: In addition, the choices of security mechanisms are more stringent. -- BY ST[[BR]] * s3.3: Highly directional traffic: Are you trying to say that the LBRs are higher valued targets and warrant something different than the regular nodes?-- BY ST === Section 3.4[[BR]] * s3.4: Not this one is likely to be cleared after an email exchange or two because there's not much for the authors to do… This made my head pop because I thought the only security defined in the RFC 6550 has confidentiality baked in. So are we dumping the security solution in rpl? With regard to confidentiality, protecting the routing/topology information from eavesdropping or unauthorized exposure may be desirable in certain cases but is in itself less pertinent in general to the routing function.-- by ST === Section 5.2.4[[BR]] * 5.2.4 - this discussion seems to overemphasize timestamps as a alternative to counters, without considering the vulnerabilities associated with transitively-relayed timestamp info.-- by SK === Section 5.3.1[[BR]] * 5.3.1 – Unlike previous sections, the focus here seems to be protocol- specific. I’d feel more comfortable that this was not simply an ad hoc discussion if it were posed in a more general form. On the other hand, if ROLL has already selected a specific routing paradigm, the preceding section should be specific to that model. -- by SK === Section 5.3.4[[BR]] * 5.3.4 – “…, if geographic positions of nodes are available, then the network can assure that data is actually routed towards the intended destination and not elsewhere.” This is not always true, since a node might have an onward connection that provides faster or higher bandwidth service towards the destination. -- by SK === Section 5.3.5[[BR]] * 5.3.5 – “In wormhole attacks at least two malicious nodes shortcut or divert the usual routing path by means of a low-latency out-of-band channel.” This seems to be a narrow characterization of such attacks. One might also say that two nodes that claim to have a short path between themselves are effecting such an attack. If two nodes really do have a short, low latency path between themselves then, from a routing perspective, what’s the problem? -- by SK === Section 6.1[[BR]] * 6.1 - Also, the cite to Geopriv is not helpful, as the context for most Geopriv work does not match the ROLL environment.-- by SK === Section 6.2[[BR]] * There is a very worrisome sentence in this section: In the most basic form, verification of routing peer authenticity and liveliness can be used to build a "chain of trust" along the path the routing information flows, such that network-wide information is validated through the concatenation of trust established at each individual routing peer exchange.” This sentence seems to endorse the notion of transitive trust for routing security, a bad idea.-- by SK[[BR]] * s6.2: Can't do security but can keep logs ;)-- by ST === Section 6.4[[BR]] * The endorsement of TPMs here seems inappropriately-specific. “ … a LLN is also encouraged to have automatic …” I don’t think you want to try to encourage a network, vs. a network operator. More to the point, we usually establish standards for security features for protocols, which seems to be the focus of this document. This is a directive directed to a network operator, and thus is out of place here. -- BY SK === Section 6.5.1[[BR]] *This draft boils down to this paragraph if I'm not mistaken: A ROLL protocol MUST be made flexible by a design that offers the configuration facility so that the user (network administrator) can choose the security settings that match the application's needs. Furthermore, in the case of LLNs, that flexibility SHOULD extend to allowing the routing protocol security requirements to be met by measures applied at different protocol layers, provided the identified requirements are collectively met. I'm absolutely fine with the first sentence. I'm even okay with the second sentence it gets done at the application layer all the time, but at the application layer they can all point to something that's all specified up and has MTI etc (think TLS). If we end up doing that here then something similar needs to end up happening. If use cases are so broad that they can't possibly pick an underlying security mechanism then you need to try again but with a smaller net. -- by ST === Section 8[[BR]] * 8 – Although the text says that “ … design guidelines with a scope limited to ROLL.” there are a few instances where the discussion is not limited to routing. I wish the document used standard terms for security services, and employed these for the requirements, e.g., from ISO 7498-2. The security service terminology used in this document is often ad hoc. -- by SK -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 14:02:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B2221F8FF5 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bvq-fhXmoyVu for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA6A21F8FDC for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41206 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UaBUu-0001AG-SR; Wed, 08 May 2013 23:02:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 21:02:00 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/125 Message-ID: <067.b8a42ee3aa07b56a25c0575de68ce20e@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 125 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #125: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Delete section/terms X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 21:02:04 -0000 #125: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Delete section/terms Comments done by Stephen Kent (SK),source:[http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03712.html] and [http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/secdir/current/msg03848.html][[BR]] Comments done by Sean Turner (ST),source: [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security- threats/ballot/] === Section 3.4[[BR]] * s3.4: misappropriated seems like the wrong word based on later sections. Masquerade seems like what you're trying to protect against, but that's covered by the peer authentication process. -- by ST === Section 5.1.2[[BR]] * 5.1.2 - Passive wiretapping (“sniffing” to the authors) does not include device compromise. -- by SK[[BR]] * 5.1.2 - The discussion of what constitutes a suitable key length is not a good topic for this document. First, the authors fail to note, at the beginning of the relevant paragraph, that the key length comments are applicable to symmetric cryptographic algorithms. Second, absent a mention of the granularity of key distribution, this discussion is premature, at best. -- BY SK === Section 5.1.4[[BR]] * 5.1.4 – Discussions of anti-tamper are rarely appropriate for IETF documents. There is no reason to believe that these authors are especially knowledgeable about such technology. I suggest this section be deleted.-- by SK === Section 5.3.3[[BR]] * 5.3.3 – “Selective forwarding” is not a routing attack.-- by SK -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 8 14:06:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CC221F881F for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:06:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Npf302I8kFLS for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8885921F8574 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41641 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UaBZ6-0003T6-Iw; Wed, 08 May 2013 23:06:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 21:06:20 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/126 Message-ID: <067.2d9fdc2a5db7d5926602af1e4c8d3a76@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 126 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #126: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Route Generation process is missing X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 21:06:25 -0000 #126: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Route Generation process is missing Comments done by Sean Turner (ST),source: [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security- threats/ballot/] === Section 3.1[[BR]] * s3.1: The "route generation" process is missing from the Asset/PoA lists shouldn't it be there?. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed May 8 18:39:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCFC21F902A for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 18:39:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VkwYZ9Dj+LMd for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 18:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EA421F9026 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 18:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED542016E; Wed, 8 May 2013 21:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 34D5663A7E; Wed, 8 May 2013 21:38:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22438639DF; Wed, 8 May 2013 21:38:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: roll@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <067.fdab363d655b1902d82f78e9aebff2a7@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.fdab363d655b1902d82f78e9aebff2a7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) 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: mariainesrobles@gmail.com, tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #124: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include further explanation X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 01:39:20 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've asked Ines to turn the security directorate review into a series of tickets. I believe that the Security-Threats team has made significant progress on a number of these items, but I want to make sure, and I want to keep the WG in the loop on this important work. This is a team effort. =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) iQCVAwUAUYr+HYqHRg3pndX9AQK8vwQAjEv2Fc09SmZ5HcNdOp0mbMJvq82nOHeM u7YrhF41dsZbnZanPu1G+DAirOZ+GJiD5DD8I6dRMTWFo4Vli1RBFXXitcDGO0gW V++a9nSP9UvvQmRabjfZtSZQiLDB/kN5X9K9DTn+n2qby/FZtGBSbB+6CVKHpaHX HMqgwky+2zM= =1Fle -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From prvs=834009b99=Tzeta.Tsao@cooperindustries.com Thu May 9 06:04:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DC321F8E9A for ; Thu, 9 May 2013 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4vD4OuN3UQs for ; Thu, 9 May 2013 06:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cooperlighting-sw.cooperlighting.com (cooperlighting-sw.cooperlighting.com [216.130.131.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEB321F8956 for ; Thu, 9 May 2013 06:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: cooperlighting-sw.cooperlighting.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,641,1363147200"; d="scan'208";a="99840411" Received: from cipt0174.nam.ci.root ([10.132.108.174]) by cooperlighting-sw.cooperlighting.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2013 09:04:16 -0400 Received: from EVS2.NAM.CI.ROOT ([10.132.108.170]) by cipt0174.NAM.CI.ROOT with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 9 May 2013 09:04:15 -0400 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 09:04:14 -0400 Message-ID: <85A23E0910B2FB4B8EF60D0888CB083602D5E5A0@EVS2.nam.ci.root> In-Reply-To: <26077.1368063518@sandelman.ca> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Roll] [roll] #124: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include further explanation Thread-Index: Ac5MVgSQGQxacOp5ShG1kcQaltB6AQAXpSsg References: <067.fdab363d655b1902d82f78e9aebff2a7@trac.tools.ietf.org> <26077.1368063518@sandelman.ca> From: "Tsao, Tzeta" To: "Michael Richardson" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 May 2013 13:04:15.0347 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5382430:01CE4CB5] Cc: mariainesrobles@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #124: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include further explanation X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 13:04:21 -0000 See in line. > -----Original Message----- > From: mcr@sandelman.ca [mailto:mcr@sandelman.ca] On Behalf Of Michael > Richardson > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 9:39 PM > To: roll@ietf.org > Cc: Tsao, Tzeta; mariainesrobles@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #124: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include > further explanation >=20 >=20 > I've asked Ines to turn the security directorate review into a series of tickets. > I believe that the Security-Threats team has made significant progress on a > number of these items, but I want to make sure, and I want to keep the WG > in the loop on this important work. >=20 > This is a team effort. >=20 [TT] Yes, agreed. At this stage, anything of more than editorial changes w/should be a workgroup issue and requires collective effort. > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon May 13 07:49:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF1621F8E6A; Mon, 13 May 2013 07:49:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.27 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.330, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8SCKhKjjDflK; Mon, 13 May 2013 07:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F7421F84F9; Mon, 13 May 2013 07:49:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.44.p7 Message-ID: <20130513144946.10652.46988.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 07:49:46 -0700 Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:49:47 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks= Working Group of the IETF. Title : Applicability Statement: The use of the RPL protocol set= in Home Automation and Building Control Author(s) : Anders Brandt Emmanuel Baccelli Robert Cragie Peter van der Stok Filename : draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2013-05-13 Abstract: The purpose of this document is to provide guidance in the selection and use of RPL protocols to implement the features required in building and home environments. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com Tue May 14 01:12:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6CF21F8574 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 01:12:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BQAILVqqlF6w for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 01:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maildk.sigmadesigns.com (maildk.sigmadesigns.com [195.215.56.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600A921F854E for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 01:12:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Anders Brandt To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: New WG doc: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building Thread-Index: Ac5QebBOeeypRBDWRnCbOBIJ5rkDqA== Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:12:44 +0000 Message-ID: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD20E0A19F@cph-ex1> Accept-Language: en-US, da-DK Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.10.52] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FEAS-SYSTEM-WL: anders_brandt@sigmadesigns.com Subject: [Roll] New WG doc: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:12:52 -0000 The individual I-D draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building was ad= opted as a WG doc just before IETF-86. A substantial number of changes were made to the I-D during IETF-86 and in = the following period. These changes were incorporated in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-buildin= g-04 This I-D has now been replaced by the WG doc=20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00 which is 100% identical to above I-D. There are still open issues, TBDs, etc. in draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ho= me-building-00, but it is a major step forward. Thanks, Anders > -----Original Message----- > From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > internet-drafts@ietf.org > Sent: 13. maj 2013 16:50 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: roll@ietf.org > Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-0= 0.txt >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networ= ks > Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Applicability Statement: The use of the RPL protocol > set in Home Automation and Building Control > Author(s) : Anders Brandt > Emmanuel Baccelli > Robert Cragie > Peter van der Stok > Filename : draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00.txt > Pages : 14 > Date : 2013-05-13 >=20 > Abstract: > The purpose of this document is to provide guidance in the selection > and use of RPL protocols to implement the features required in > building and home environments. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-build= ing >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00 >=20 >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Tue May 14 04:34:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE1A21F8F0A for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 04:34:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.016 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.583, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xUOPWqVrutAA for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 04:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com (mail-pa0-f47.google.com [209.85.220.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A39221F8E9D for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 04:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id kl13so435579pab.6 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 04:34:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=tsh1D86Iz63jbhCLWWSwDyzksuv+ErKy1QyVGepXars=; b=NovVXfOLHqnpQjSumIE0d8sZA4ghaTtOu5izTT0pFcuaTNjz5FuLnxsEw8kw8JxlTN 8V8HiCgmRdmJeIgFbxcc5kZYMIlv66lR1xhwc+JLdCmpRLII1vfLrh3gqXfpeuq5JOD4 vjihJvgRuCH/4GfEDM3cbR/rVTmEKCREObmZooZxf8QJqiA2e2WyfOf7tSJ0T6ya6Rus b8ih9rEI+e6OA8XMvAXYoTsQcbx8PaRssYjIG2JDwNq6uXuRSlL0w79hR/o8Cz4hJjqq UggVs7x1Z7vGOKyDSIYfsxmBiLds+H8RqQg5UpHsqkAW6EmoOGctgFPmqmkzG39APvy0 noYw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.193.138 with SMTP id ho10mr33455319pbc.163.1368531276876; Tue, 14 May 2013 04:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.143.132 with HTTP; Tue, 14 May 2013 04:34:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD20E0A19F@cph-ex1> References: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD20E0A19F@cph-ex1> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:34:36 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Roll] New WG doc: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:34:41 -0000 Hi Anders, The one document adopted was draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-03 not the -04, however, I think the -04 I-D has no much deletion but adding, so I agree. Usually editors discuss changes off-line (I prefer on line), However commenting on-line by summary changes reason will help reveiwer understand and progress. Thanking you, AB On 5/14/13, Anders Brandt wrote: > The individual I-D draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building was > adopted as a WG doc just before IETF-86. > A substantial number of changes were made to the I-D during IETF-86 and in > the following period. > > These changes were incorporated in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-04 > > This I-D has now been replaced by the WG doc > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00 > which is 100% identical to above I-D. > > There are still open issues, TBDs, etc. in > draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00, > but it is a major step forward. > > Thanks, > Anders > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Sent: 13. maj 2013 16:50 >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Cc: roll@ietf.org >> Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: >> draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00.txt >> >> >> 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 >> Author(s) : Anders Brandt >> Emmanuel Baccelli >> Robert Cragie >> Peter van der Stok >> Filename : draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00.txt >> Pages : 14 >> Date : 2013-05-13 >> >> Abstract: >> The purpose of this document is to provide guidance in the selection >> and use of RPL protocols to implement the features required in >> building and home environments. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-00 >> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 16 08:07:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C41B021F9113 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LY+Lo81AivJm for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9FE21F90FC for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52817 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UczmD-0004hf-3y; Thu, 16 May 2013 17:07:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mcr@sandelman.ca, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:07:29 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/108#comment:2 Message-ID: <073.97e50d21be0e9afbcdeb5f2db56667b3@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.a2b4f297c2cf9334c783ff7c900bdb13@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 108 In-Reply-To: <058.a2b4f297c2cf9334c783ff7c900bdb13@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, mcr@sandelman.ca, 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-Message-Id: <20130516150740.1D9FE21F90FC@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #108: trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:07:41 -0000 #108: trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field? Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:48:26 +0000 From: Robert Cragie To: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #108: trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field? Message-ID: <50AA2A9A.1030000@gridmerge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Regarding having an explicit version field: I have thought about this more and I am happy with the text in draft 02 as it stands, as it leaves it free for future versions to define the reserved fields in more detail providing at least 1 bit is set to 1. I certainly wouldn't see the point in making the whole set of reserved bits into a version number as this could limit flexibility in the future. Robert -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 16 08:09:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67AF21F8FC4 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:09:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XZnbC-zLbUx4 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDA821F8F38 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52893 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Uczo6-0004uc-I2; Thu, 16 May 2013 17:09:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mcr@sandelman.ca, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:09:26 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/108#comment:3 Message-ID: <073.6829656ded007d23d9d1e6865e9a5f7c@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.a2b4f297c2cf9334c783ff7c900bdb13@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 108 In-Reply-To: <058.a2b4f297c2cf9334c783ff7c900bdb13@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, mcr@sandelman.ca, 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-Message-Id: <20130516150931.AFDA821F8F38@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #108: trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:09:34 -0000 #108: trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field? Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:59:27 +0000 From: Robert Cragie To: Michael Richardson Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #108: trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field? Message-ID: <50AC0B4F.8020705@gridmerge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" On 20/11/2012 5:40 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: >>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Cragie writes: > Robert> Regarding having an explicit version field: I have thought > Robert> about this more and I am happy with the text in draft 02 as > Robert> it stands, as it leaves it free for future versions to > Robert> define the reserved fields in more detail providing at least > Robert> 1 bit is set to 1. I certainly wouldn't see the point in > Robert> making the whole set of reserved bits into a version number > Robert> as this could limit flexibility in the future. > > What would an existing implementation do when it sees these reserved > bits? Discard the packet if any are set - that's what's specified now. So this can be implicitly regarded as a version number, where (rsvd == 0) -> version 0, (rsvd > 0) -> not version 0. > > Turning reserved bits into a version number after the fact is a bad > idea... how much would change with the version number? > This needs to be thought out beforehand. So there are currently 5 reserved bits. How many do we want to use for a version number? It could be argued that one bit is enough as to some extent in the next version, you are free to change the format providing earlier versions discard newer versions. So maybe: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Type | Opt Data Len | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | S |M|V| rsv | sequence | seed-id (optional) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ would be adequate where: V = version number. Must be set to 0, must be received as 0. Some may argue about backwards compatibility but this means you have to ignore bits set on receipt and you are not at liberty to change the header apart from filling in the reserved fields. This only works acceptably if the fields aren't tightly packed and there are plenty of reserved fields - not in this case. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 16 08:53:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37B421F86CE for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:53:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a5K4pX1SPqSg for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F15021F885A for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55914 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ud0Uv-0003kP-Np; Thu, 16 May 2013 17:53:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, abdussalambaryun@gmail.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:53:41 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/110#comment:2 Message-ID: <073.11964b49e608d46b41962ff9ea3b953e@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.c053ae172b60ad763a419d3caf1dd7ac@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 110 In-Reply-To: <058.c053ae172b60ad763a419d3caf1dd7ac@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, abdussalambaryun@gmail.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130516155345.3F15021F885A@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #110: trickle-mcast: do applications receive all multicast, or just MPL encapsulated ones X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:53:46 -0000 #110: trickle-mcast: do applications receive all multicast, or just MPL encapsulated ones Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:08:42 +0000 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" To: "" Cc: "" , "" Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #110: trickle-mcast: do applications receive all multicast, or just MPL encapsulated ones Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" The FF0X::MPL multicast address serves to identify a group of MPL forwarders within an MPL domain. I think if any device sends a packet to FF0X::MPL, it should be delivered to and processed by all devices subscribed to that address. Thoughts from others? -- Jonathan Hui -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 16 09:00:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421A221F93D4 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 09:00:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q40fXWRrm+du for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 09:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5381421F8793 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56524 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ud0ai-0002xW-D3; Thu, 16 May 2013 17:59:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, abdussalambaryun@gmail.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:59:40 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/110#comment:3 Message-ID: <073.63374bef2e990decae160a1aa851745b@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.c053ae172b60ad763a419d3caf1dd7ac@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 110 In-Reply-To: <058.c053ae172b60ad763a419d3caf1dd7ac@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, abdussalambaryun@gmail.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130516155959.5381421F8793@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #110: trickle-mcast: do applications receive all multicast, or just MPL encapsulated ones X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:00:28 -0000 #110: trickle-mcast: do applications receive all multicast, or just MPL encapsulated ones Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Thread on the previous comment: http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/roll/current/msg07525.html -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 16 09:21:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3598A11E8103 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 09:21:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g8q+quaLH0f7 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 09:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A92B11E8108 for ; Thu, 16 May 2013 09:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58394 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ud0vW-0004Pr-8w; Thu, 16 May 2013 18:21:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:21:10 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/114#comment:1 Message-ID: <073.14ae54848d700dea88a5d104cfc5451a@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.01a618d1a7b5cd8b99d1962f7773d556@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 114 In-Reply-To: <058.01a618d1a7b5cd8b99d1962f7773d556@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 Resent-Message-Id: <20130516162115.1A92B11E8108@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 09:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #114: mcast option number changed X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:21:16 -0000 #114: mcast option number changed Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Thread on this discussion: http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/roll/current/msg07882.html -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: Severity: Submitted | WG Document | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From Mehdi.Mani@itron.com Fri May 17 02:55:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F085A21F9223 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 02:54:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hYCS+gxv8p+G for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 02:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.itron.com (mail.itron.com [198.182.8.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A342321F9195 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 02:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ITR-EXMBXVS-1.itron.com ([192.168.9.112]) by spo-exchcn-1.itron.com ([192.168.9.115]) with mapi; Fri, 17 May 2013 02:54:37 -0700 From: "Mani, Mehdi" To: "roll@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 02:54:34 -0700 Thread-Topic: RPL energy consumption analysis Thread-Index: Ac5S5IkTga1Obnw6RGyWr5+QM5yFvw== Message-ID: <10F62A0D440ACA41A85C7CB02936A1DB5B433BACF9@ITR-EXMBXVS-1.itron.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_10F62A0D440ACA41A85C7CB02936A1DB5B433BACF9ITREXMBXVS1it_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Roll] RPL energy consumption analysis X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 09:55:13 -0000 --_000_10F62A0D440ACA41A85C7CB02936A1DB5B433BACF9ITREXMBXVS1it_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, Are there some informative documents in ROLL which analyses RPL energy con= sumption effects on battery powered devices/sensors. Thanks --_000_10F62A0D440ACA41A85C7CB02936A1DB5B433BACF9ITREXMBXVS1it_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Folks,<= /p>

 

Are there some informative documents in ROLL which analyses RPL &= nbsp;energy consumption effects on battery powered devices/sensors.

 

Thanks

 

= = --_000_10F62A0D440ACA41A85C7CB02936A1DB5B433BACF9ITREXMBXVS1it_-- From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Fri May 17 08:01:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64A921F95EE for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sGNjbRbUKqPx for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D4121F95E1 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42731 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UdM9t-00059m-Kd; Fri, 17 May 2013 17:01:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, abdussalambaryun@gmail.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:01:25 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/110#comment:4 Message-ID: <073.cf0506a1da4c08c5998823af47a1efb4@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.c053ae172b60ad763a419d3caf1dd7ac@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 110 In-Reply-To: <058.c053ae172b60ad763a419d3caf1dd7ac@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, abdussalambaryun@gmail.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130517150130.24D4121F95E1@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 08:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #110: trickle-mcast: do applications receive all multicast, or just MPL encapsulated ones X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:01:30 -0000 #110: trickle-mcast: do applications receive all multicast, or just MPL encapsulated ones Comment (by abdussalambaryun@gmail.com): Replying to [comment:3 mariainesrobles@…]: > Thread on the previous comment: http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/roll/current/msg07525.html IMHO, not any device, if the device is not join the domain it should not receive MPL packet. Also cannot inject packets to MPL forwarders only if subscribed as mentioned in section 14. So for devices that don't subscribe they should use another way to send their packets to the MPL group. AB -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 07:47:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5816E21F926E for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 07:47:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0BMERbp7MSW3 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 07:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9563821F8618 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 07:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57049 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeRMk-0003nb-Li; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:47:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:47:10 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/111#comment:1 Message-ID: <083.fba384d0b5a2297f5e8b5fae741ce269@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <068.d297e97474c3aa6d3b0200f33881db3c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 111 In-Reply-To: <068.d297e97474c3aa6d3b0200f33881db3c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #111: MPL relation with RPL is not clear X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:47:13 -0000 #111: MPL relation with RPL is not clear Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Hui (johui) Date: 2013/5/20 Subject: Re: #113: MPL Processing Section MPL and RPL are independent protocols that both target LLNs. MPL addresses multicast forwarding in LLNs, while RPL addresses unicast routing and forwarding in LLNs. -- Jonathan Hui -- ----------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: abdussalambaryun@gmail.com | Owner: Abdussalam Baryun Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: Multicast, RPL, Trickle | ----------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From jvasseur@cisco.com Mon May 20 11:47:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8186E21F9610 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RxTVkJY6BjnI for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D957321F960D for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:47:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=489; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369075638; x=1370285238; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BdpyN2i1ZKRNDBNcQYdsOz02Lo4vre+Z29N89zQsM5g=; b=Tmlklll0tDSyciqRWsegvTFqi593DUTFLGk9SifVVLmKenWvkp1oOOL4 TwKgsVN5lFsl6dBjf3wnyM6bXN2gHMCfeHqUiBrWpcARIvsT9S1RV9aPL HMDdF09gsH8HVuZqTdkfZJ08+g79n9XRINlDQftsEcxew4OlJdmpCl4Ny o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAPhumlGtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABagwjBc4ECFnSCIQEEOjQLEgEqFEInBA4NiAW8T45wMYJ6YQOoeIMPgiY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,709,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="212725823" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 May 2013 18:47:17 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4KIlHwB012516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 20 May 2013 18:47:17 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.15]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 20 May 2013 13:47:17 -0500 From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: roLL WG not meeting in Berlin Thread-Index: AQHOVYpzNfhFUYCifE2qS8oNaBs5TQ== Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:47:16 +0000 Message-ID: <03B78081B371D44390ED6E7BADBB4A77234E6BA6@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.60.114.226] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] roLL WG not meeting in Berlin X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:47:23 -0000 Dear WG, The ROLL WG will not meet in Berlin; we continue to make good progress on o= pen items, several of the documents are going through IESG review (e,g, Trickle Multicast, ...) unless you know= a burning issue that you think does require=20 to meet, we will continue to progress on the mailing list. ps: for the authors having an on-going ID requires more work (AMI applicabi= lity, ... ) please keep the pressure up to move on - thanks ! Thanks. JP and Michael.= From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Mon May 20 13:48:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46F521F9686 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 13:48:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.766 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cb7V1HOgQUCl for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 13:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22f.google.com (mail-qc0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B96021F9682 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 13:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id a1so3069630qcx.6 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 13:48:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=jlK5LgsVriXk/soEhQuanRweaRxl+BGHir0l8Vq3KYs=; b=UxXwbSE/eBkLjTyrEJK5iqoFkMVqdSeT6kAJkfYsXmFE+mRdif1dAlw4nrOzQ4EfLo 6rBtsyPglA2ZybfrfgVVxhVQvpmA8xMX+KH6quvi+BMVAg+S735ALqvDYwPB7dF6AhoK olsxC0AGTkLUB/WfaS9Pty3jwX0glIGLPtKd2L1qbjVx0tkAmFMZIGCZd48Pt9khgcwQ K1I3m9ENdoUUAPPdw1BrNWzJF2/sOqe2HiyV2t59WI5+7qW4txE+T+kvj7I5WQl5zqu6 XYrcreKjAQgvD/dypgPHg4yt78/DFBZ7RBzvS/8ZjvJfhX8pEMA7ZY9eY1K+1cIUc1TP amnA== X-Received: by 10.229.76.219 with SMTP id d27mr2592807qck.13.1369082911711; Mon, 20 May 2013 13:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.86.244.127] (198-135-0-233.cisco.com. [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i5sm29391qaf.0.2013.05.20.13.48.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 May 2013 13:48:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Droms Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5F047F29-26B3-4EC5-9AF7-7CCD9122A48E@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:48:25 +0300 To: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Subject: [Roll] draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 sent to IESG? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 20:48:32 -0000 According to the e-mail below, draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 the = authors were asked to revise draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 to address = some responses posted to the WG last call. Reviewing the mailing list, = there were a couple of additional issues posted after the WG last call = ended. I see that the document has been sent to the IESG without the = requested revisions. If I have that right, may we be informed about why = the document was sent out of the WG without the requested revisions? - Ralph On Mar 15, 2013, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: >=20 > This terminates the WG LC; authors please make sure the address the = few concerns that were raised during WG LC, > I am specifically referring to the editorial comments raised by Kerry. >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > JP. >=20 From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 16:13:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0497721F9697 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:13:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z4Paj1T6mCC5 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7808721F9690 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37535 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeZGT-0007jS-2Y; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:13:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, esko.dijk@philips.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:13:13 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103#comment:2 Message-ID: <073.e4941b4a30c7446c479b9c041c937f1e@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.7a7e59e1d63de176dad4a13f15227438@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 103 In-Reply-To: <058.7a7e59e1d63de176dad4a13f15227438@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, esko.dijk@philips.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130520231320.7808721F9690@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #103: trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:13:22 -0000 #103: trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: It was handled in version 03 based on: The parameters REACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS and PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS are not more valid onward version 03. and in section 5.2 (version 04), ICMP is used for MPL Control Message: “MPL defines an ICMPv6 Message (MPL Control Message) for communicating information contained in an MPL Domain's Seed Set and Buffered Message Set to neighboring MPL Forwarders. The MPL Control Message has ICMPv6 Type MPL_ICMP_TYPE.” -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: fixed Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 16:14:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3055F21F9697 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:14:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GR32n6W8FQ7F for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947AB21F96A4 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37646 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeZHO-0000W1-T6; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:14:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:14:10 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/106#comment:1 Message-ID: <073.e6db28d583309943fb8d84f1b3f980a5@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.7c47b5382385323199505bfcf3e1c3f0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 106 In-Reply-To: <058.7c47b5382385323199505bfcf3e1c3f0@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 Resent-Message-Id: <20130520231414.947AB21F96A4@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #106: trickle-mcast: always use 6in6 encapsulation for non-link-local multicast X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:14:15 -0000 #106: trickle-mcast: always use 6in6 encapsulation for non-link-local multicast Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: It was handled in version version 04- Section 4.2 states: “ …. If the multicast destination address is not the MPL Domain Address, IP-in-IP [RFC2473] is used to encapsulate the multicast message in an MPL Data Message, preserving the original IPv6 Destination Address.” (maybe should say IPv6-in-IPv6, like is mentioned previously in the doc) and #105 states: “...encapsulating a mc message originating from or destined for outside the MPL Domain”. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: fixed Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 16:15:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D72921F9665 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:15:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AppDFZzacfm0 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33DD821F9662 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37674 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeZIE-0002za-Ap; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:15:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mcr@sandelman.ca, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:15:02 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/108#comment:4 Message-ID: <073.0008519d2557b2f6f67a7c874d854031@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.a2b4f297c2cf9334c783ff7c900bdb13@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 108 In-Reply-To: <058.a2b4f297c2cf9334c783ff7c900bdb13@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, mcr@sandelman.ca, 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-Message-Id: <20130520231507.33DD821F9662@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #108: trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:15:08 -0000 #108: trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field? Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: The version field was added in the version 03 - Section 6.1 “V: 1-bit flag. 0 indicates that the MPL Option conforms to this specification. MPL Data Messages with an MPL Option in which this flag is 1 MUST be dropped “ -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: fixed Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 16:17:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B574121F96BB for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:17:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iWRjS0YSJGen for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281E521F96BA for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37756 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeZKB-0006NO-1j; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:17:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, esko.dijk@philips.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:17:03 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/109#comment:2 Message-ID: <073.cd357ec10af270c8b588fcbcb14e07ea@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.17a4c61a0b0575298f48df9ded41bd6b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 109 In-Reply-To: <058.17a4c61a0b0575298f48df9ded41bd6b@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, esko.dijk@philips.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130520231707.281E521F96BA@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #109: trickle-mcast: should all MPL packets be destined to all-MPL-forwarders X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:17:07 -0000 #109: trickle-mcast: should all MPL packets be destined to all-MPL-forwarders Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: In draft version 03/04 states: “...By default, an MPL Forwarder SHOULD participate in an MPL Domain identified by the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS multicast address with a scope value of 3 (subnet-local)....” IANA is requested to allocate .., "ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS" from the "Variable Scope Multicast Addresses" sub-registry of the "INTERNET PROTOCOL VERSION 6 MULTICAST ADDRESSES" registry. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: fixed Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 16:18:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AE621F96CB for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:18:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id izU4RnnFnVjF for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D772A21F96CC for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37783 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeZLb-0005vy-3O; Tue, 21 May 2013 01:18:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, abdussalambaryun@gmail.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:18:31 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/110#comment:5 Message-ID: <073.e15e85896ee6f73ccaf320fd293f0461@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.c053ae172b60ad763a419d3caf1dd7ac@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 110 In-Reply-To: <058.c053ae172b60ad763a419d3caf1dd7ac@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, abdussalambaryun@gmail.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: jonhui@cisco.com, richard.kelsey@silabs.com Resent-Message-Id: <20130520231834.D772A21F96CC@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #110: trickle-mcast: do applications receive all multicast, or just MPL encapsulated ones X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:18:35 -0000 #110: trickle-mcast: do applications receive all multicast, or just MPL encapsulated ones Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: for this apply the section 4.2 in version 04: “...If the multicast destination address is not the MPL Domain Address, IP-in-IP [RFC2473] is used to encapsulate the multicast message in an MPL Data Message, preserving the original IPv6 Destination Address.” -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: fixed Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 17:01:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B743D21F96D9 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:01:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Z8eQnVZka8c for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1691B21F96D3 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40414 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Uea1G-0004QD-8P; Tue, 21 May 2013 02:01:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:01:34 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/127 Message-ID: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 127 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:01:38 -0000 #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 From: peter van der Stok I have a few editing remarks for mpl-4 document: end of page 8, end of Reactive forwarding paragraph. I suggest to replace <..... using the Trickle algorithm> by <.....using proactive forwarding>. page 11, default value of DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN "10 times the worst-case link-layer latency" given the medium sensing and back-off in the MAC, the worst case link-layer latency becomes easily 100 ms, giving a default value of 1 second or more. May be you mean the transmission time which has a value of 3 ms ? page 11, default value of DATA_MESSAGE_K has value of 5, before the value of 1 was encouraged. Personally for me, the value 1 seems adquate. page 15 MPL Seed Info [0..n], page 14 MPL Seed Info [1..n], Given the other text with bit i=0 meaning the message with seq nr min-seqno, I would suggest MPL Seed Info [0..n-1] -- ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: applicability-ami | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 17:07:48 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A257B21F96EA for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:07:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kpZToAHqdrwu for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB91521F96C5 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40940 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Uea73-0001vG-QI; Tue, 21 May 2013 02:07:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:07:33 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/127#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.3bcedb4e4a6af10be21c62df7ccce1a4@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 127 In-Reply-To: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:07:48 -0000 #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * component: applicability-ami => trickle-mcast -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 17:12:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29BDC21F9636 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:12:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kaHqbdA1mVHi for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5DC21F96B7 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41065 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeaBQ-00068z-Vz; Tue, 21 May 2013 02:12:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:12:04 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/128 Message-ID: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 128 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:12:13 -0000 #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? From: Kerry Lynn Apart from the fact that this draft is introduced in ROLL to address a problem inherent in multi-link subnets, I see nothing in the proposal that limits it to such networks. It seems to me that trickle multicast could be considered in other applications, e.g. homenet, if it compares favorably with PIM-xM in complexity. Thread http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07845.html -- ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 17:17:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C24E21F96D9 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:17:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XDSTggaZ1ohW for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:17:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE78921F96C5 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41477 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeaGT-0005qA-HP; Tue, 21 May 2013 02:17:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:17:17 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/129 Message-ID: <067.eb8cd06a193daa93167f1567d59337cc@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 129 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #129: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Proactive and Reactive Forwarding should be mutually exclusive within the same MPL Domain? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:17:21 -0000 #129: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Proactive and Reactive Forwarding should be mutually exclusive within the same MPL Domain? From: Kerry Lynn In reading trickle multicast in this more general way, I'd like to see additional clarification regarding the use of Proactive Forwarding. Section 4.2 reads: Proactive Forwarding - With proactive forwarding, an MPL Forwarder schedules transmissions of MPL Data Messages using the Trickle algorithm, without any prior indication that neighboring nodes have yet to receive the message. After transmitting the MPL Data Message a limited number of times, the MPL Forwarder may terminate proactive forwarding for the MPL Data Message message. I think the final sentence should read: After transmitting the MPL Data Message a limited number of times, the MPL Forwarder MUST terminate forwarding of the MPL Data Message. This eliminates the possible interpretation that both Proactive and Reactive Forwarding may be used by the same MPL Forwarder for the same MPL Data Message within the same MPL Domain. I believe the intent is that Proactive and Reactive Forwarding should be mutually exclusive within the same MPL Domain? In section 5.4, PROACTIVE_FORWARDING is listed as a "MPL Forwarder Parameter". I believe this should be set (or not) on a MPL Domain basis (and therefore as an attribute of the Local Interface). Again, it should be made clear that Proactive and Reactive Forwarding are mutually exclusive, e.g. by adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph in section 5.4: If PROACTIVE_FORWARDING is FALSE, then Reactive Forwarding is in use. This ties it to section 5.1, which mandates MPL Control Messages on an interface where Reactive Forwarding is in use. Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07845.html -- ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 17:27:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3CD21F9711 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:27:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MUxPF0PsYwmS for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFC821F9722 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42017 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UeaQE-0000f3-Ji; Tue, 21 May 2013 02:27:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:27:22 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/130 Message-ID: <067.0d5d0fe70fe1dd4413131ee8d5d0a3ce@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 130 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #130: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - meaning of DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:27:27 -0000 #130: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - meaning of DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS From: Kerry Lynn I believe that section 5.5 should also be clarified with respect to the meaning of DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS. The second paragraph should read: This specification defines a fourth Trickle configuration parameter, TimerExpirations, which indicates the number of Trickle timer expiration events that occur before terminating the forwarding of a given MPL Data Message. This then ties DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS back to the "limited number of times" statement in section 4.2. Similarly, the definition of DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS should read: DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS The number of Trickle timer expirations that occur before terminating the Trickle algorithm's re-transmission of a given MPL Data Message. DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS has a default value of 3. This eliminates the possible interpretation that the Trickle algorithm may not be used for subsequent MPL Data Messages. Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07845.html -- ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From mcr@sandelman.ca Mon May 20 17:29:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBD321F972E for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:29:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KKPOezCjTreR for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B6221F9711 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E95A20168 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 20:41:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id B126863A7E; Mon, 20 May 2013 20:28:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBD663A6C for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 20:28:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: <5F047F29-26B3-4EC5-9AF7-7CCD9122A48E@gmail.com> References: <5F047F29-26B3-4EC5-9AF7-7CCD9122A48E@gmail.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) 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] draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 sent to IESG? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:29:22 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Ralph" =3D=3D Ralph Droms writes: Ralph> According to the e-mail below, Ralph> draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 the authors were asked to Ralph> revise draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 to address some Ralph> responses posted to the WG last call. Reviewing the mailing Ralph> list, there were a couple of additional issues posted after Ralph> the WG last call ended. I see that the document has been Ralph> sent to the IESG without the requested revisions. If I have Ralph> that right, may we be informed about why the document was Ralph> sent out of the WG without the requested revisions?=20 okay, so here is what is going on. *I* pushed the button to take it out of WG LC, because we had done that. It seems that really we are missing a datatracker state, because the next step is IESG, and really, the next step is at least, Shepard Write-Up. I am unaware of the changes that were requested during WG LC. Was there an issue other than the code point? Were there tickets open? I will look through the mailing list archives. =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) iQCVAwUAUZq/koqHRg3pndX9AQL/fAP/RvrdZRwWkvtSmAIKTjFWrp6NY7qVi3ZK FRJ9Qen9q6dXYQA4iqDf14vkd2fOe/TZGVO1SXJdoPNW/A1x7gouMXn++LAMp7u+ LlSTzZX5i8IFusKXGwDh9U56hxYdKAGOEn7dGZhbXkAdZo+dVAOpxUEzMZd7tjcD VESs9LQvKeU= =oadG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 18:11:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A958F21F96CC for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:11:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J5xIoHKcC2CW for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7AC21F96BE for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44968 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ueb73-0004bJ-SX; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:11:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:11:37 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/131 Message-ID: <067.e4de15ce80832e02dc4336e884c41db0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 131 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #131: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Parameter-IMAX-equal-to-IMIX X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:11:42 -0000 #131: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Parameter-IMAX-equal-to-IMIX From: Kerry Lynn Abstract] Different Trickle parameter configurations allow MPL to trade between dissemination latency and transmission efficiency. [AB] The I-D does not show parameter values/relations/equations, how can I test their consistency with the protocol? [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07887.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07880.html Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07899.html From Philip Levis I worry a bit about the default value for DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX. Setting IMAX to the same as IMIN misses one very useful property of exponentially increasing timers, which is that they quickly find the right randomization interval under heavy congestion. The original motivation for the exponential timer in Trickle was to find the right randomization interval (much as, say, Ethernet CSMA/CD does). The challenge with having IMAX equal IMIN is that if IMIN is too small, you'll end up with a lot of congestion and link-layer collisions. I don't think this needs any change to the document because it's just a default. If experience and practice shows that you don't want IMAX to be equal to IMIN, then I'm sure people will adjust best practices and recommendations appropriately. Just wanted to point out that keeping an eye on this might be valuable. Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07887.html -- ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 18:22:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E202C21F971E for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:22:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ClsY3xLVOssM for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61A521F971D for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45710 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UebHe-00014p-Ly; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:22:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:22:34 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/132 Message-ID: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 132 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:22:38 -0000 #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local From Kerry Lynn Regarding the definition of MPL Domains, section 8 states: By default, an MPL Forwarder SHOULD participate in an MPL Domain identified by the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS multicast address with a scope value of 3 (subnet-local). As Ralph Droms indicated in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07829.html, "something has to be done to allow MPL to use scope 0x03." In the most expedient scenario, 0x03 is re-defined from "reserved" to "undefined" and the proposal then gets to define how 0x03 is used by trickle multicast. Assuming the desired use of 0x03 multicast scope is to indicate ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS within a given prefix, the question is how to indicate the prefix in question? RFC 6282 allows for the stateful compression of RFC 3306 (prefix-based) multicast addresses. RFC 3307, section 4.2 allows for the assignment of "Permanent IPv6 Multicast Group Identifiers" for use with RFC 3306 multicast addresses. Therefore it seems prudent to also request from IANA a Permanent IPv6 Multicast Group Identifier http://www.iana.org/assignments/perm-mcast-groupids/perm-mcast- groupids.xml to allow for the possibility of specifying the desired prefix in the MPL Domain Address. Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07845.html From Ralph Droms Multicast scope 0x03 has never been formally defined as "subnet-local". Delete the references to "subnet-local" in sections 5.1 and 8, leaving just "scope value of 3". Note that scope value 3 is currently defined as "reserved" in RFC 4291. I am working on publication of an RFC that will re-define scope value 3 as "(unassigned)" so it can be used as specified in draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04. Following up on my previous feedback - lacking a definition for scope 3, the document should include a definition for scope 3 as used in MPL; e.g., "all interfaces connected to a single mesh network". Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07863.html -- ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 20 18:27:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8103921F9625 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:27:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vuBoGECaDJoE for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC8221F965A for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45988 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UebMq-0006RD-9J; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:27:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:27:56 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/127#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.71869706c653c9e98686b58fa2d16fbf@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 127 In-Reply-To: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:27:59 -0000 #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): From Kerry Lynn Lastly, to improve the clarity of section 11.2, the first bullet should read: o This document defines a "consistent" transmission as receiving an MPL Control Message that results in a determination that neither the receiving nor transmitting node has any new MPL Data Messages to offer. (The transmission indicates nothing about state at the receiver.) Similarly, the second bullet should read: o This document defines an "inconsistent" transmission as receiving an MPL Control Message that results in a determination that either the receiving or transmitting node has at least one new MPL Data Message to offer. It might be helpful to add a penultimate sentence to section 11.2: The Trickle timer is reset in response to external "events". Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07845.html From Ralph Droms Section 8 seems somewhat out of place, as well as redundant with the definition of "MPL Domain" in section 2 and the contents of section 5.1. In section 10.1, "the MPL Domain Address" is a little confusing. Does a device belong to just a single MPL Domain, in which case it might be clearer to write "the MPL Domain Address to which the source interface belongs". Otherwise - and I don't think I see any text in the document that explicitly constrains an interface to belonging to one MPL domain - the text should read "an MPL Domain Address to which the source interface belongs". Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07863.html -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Mon May 20 18:46:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985B521F974A for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:46:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OBXGazaCX6DQ for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-x232.google.com (mail-ve0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F3521F974B for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id d10so45234vea.9 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:45:52 -0700 (PDT) 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=uXpW+TTu8Xs/q/XvkzGRlylljRoQvgftDCReWl/rlcw=; b=yqwCbsli1C5o2S7Ck3c2V3JtPWiXHGjecFm3iBh1jHfEuhZEJhG1OhuGxnrHa6ZdcJ q0HdEZDZYV3qRNja78kDaiO9/fWNDWhmeUsTxZYus4ZYWN8ZLq39vSCAe+d2f/hn/pAb erW5GEr/kX0JFaZKKe87TzytFN1qpoyhlD4Ky4pF6i1hCdM96mJT25fmUOxvULqI72kl GDnehgRG22hsD0CrErANgd7NLFv8mKUJRqD4RQB9L60mq6AdIxehRjgFvh/onHlgNGuF IDX0IHfAarO249mADFGUX2ymzNE+7RMiJSQQWOmoPwl1mbsiKny/pwI86S8+qPHXJS79 NYGw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.246.196 with SMTP id lz4mr50193vcb.45.1369100752087; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.177.135 with HTTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:45:52 -0300 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176c67fd6ff804dd309b2c Cc: roll@ietf.org, Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 sent to IESG? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:46:01 -0000 --089e01176c67fd6ff804dd309b2c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello, The comments done for the WG are addressed in tickets from #127 to #132, even the ones after the LC closed. They are going to be mentioned in the Shepard Write-Up, which is in process and it will be published here - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/shepherdwriteup/ - Kind Regards, Ines Robles. ------------------------------ okay, so here is what is going on. *I* pushed the button to take it out of WG LC, because we had done that. It seems that really we are missing a datatracker state, because the next step is IESG, and really, the next step is at least, Shepard Write-Up. I am unaware of the changes that were requested during WG LC. Was there an issue other than the code point? Were there tickets open? I will look through the mailing list archives. --089e01176c67fd6ff804dd309b2c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

The comments done for the WG are addressed in t= ickets from #127 to #132, even the ones after the LC closed.

They are going to be mentioned in the = Shepard Write-Up, which is in process and it will be published here -=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcas= t/shepherdwriteup/=A0-

Kind Regard= s,

Ine= s Robles.


------------------------------
=A0okay, so here is what is going on.
*I* pushed the button to take it out of WG LC, because we had done that. It seems that really we are missing a datatracker state, because the
next step is IESG, and really, the next step is at least, Shepard Write-Up.=

I am unaware of the changes that were requested during WG LC.
Was there an issue other than the code point?

Were there tickets open? =A0 I will look through the mailing list archives.=

--089e01176c67fd6ff804dd309b2c-- From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Mon May 20 23:22:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D89621F9715 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 23:22:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.724 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sJPvMsrv3L+o for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 23:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-x22b.google.com (mail-gg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F1421F971C for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 23:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-gg0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h13so59632ggd.2 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 23:22:37 -0700 (PDT) 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:x-mailer; bh=PvEkKt2EdO6AP2sSG9IyID+whXcp/AeyLxKgu0ZKk18=; b=kQ0J0R3YEF1wsnSEk/pp0nMmA2OBqX5xYVJWdzStWBbUCyRbzbjgxaAFjV/r35rVY9 QFkKuuyGT89YUpDgrOgLJ6rLcoOhwg04NkE1cOQYJ+uVnXs5zBVP4jLI3fan9fcFCrp4 y56Yk4prlEC0YwZXfsGFV6C/ZWQC1T3FGO5EpYs5JVFQ6W2WYkArpGPQU2eO1FcoMSsg Axo+Dh7BCnCAbPlA2LCajjI7uvi1Pfcpw0GhKToPtaMYeDzjSNIv9oRYCSOesNEvwwfb vp0/DPOoY4WI9wnTuEBM2r8iLCxkUk4sGxNnlu0iNrJNCJDPoIKRozHtDbObnuxaY1l9 4sVQ== X-Received: by 10.236.29.17 with SMTP id h17mr676894yha.66.1369117357147; Mon, 20 May 2013 23:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.86.244.60] (198-135-0-233.cisco.com. [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v27sm2115990yhj.12.2013.05.20.23.22.35 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 May 2013 23:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <2459.1369096083@sandelman.ca> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:22:32 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <5F047F29-26B3-4EC5-9AF7-7CCD9122A48E@gmail.com> <2459.1369096083@sandelman.ca> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Subject: Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 sent to IESG? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 06:22:40 -0000 Michael... On May 21, 2013, at 3:28 AM 5/21/13, Michael Richardson = wrote: >=20 >>>>>> "Ralph" =3D=3D Ralph Droms writes: > Ralph> According to the e-mail below, > Ralph> draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 the authors were asked to > Ralph> revise draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 to address some > Ralph> responses posted to the WG last call. Reviewing the mailing > Ralph> list, there were a couple of additional issues posted after > Ralph> the WG last call ended. I see that the document has been > Ralph> sent to the IESG without the requested revisions. If I have > Ralph> that right, may we be informed about why the document was > Ralph> sent out of the WG without the requested revisions?=20 >=20 > okay, so here is what is going on. > *I* pushed the button to take it out of WG LC, because we had done = that. Sorry, I don't know what "that" refers to. As far as I can tell, the = document has not been revised in response to any of the WG last call = comments. > It seems that really we are missing a datatracker state, because the > next step is IESG, and really, the next step is at least, Shepard = Write-Up. OK. >=20 > I am unaware of the changes that were requested during WG LC. > Was there an issue other than the code point? Yes, there were several other issues. >=20 > Were there tickets open? I will look through the mailing list = archives. Ines just opened tickets 127-132 = (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07953.html). The = specific multicast scope issue I am concerned about is in ticket 132. It seems to me some of these issues should really be resolved in new = document text before it goes to the IESG. For example, the multicast = scope issue needs a definition for multicast scope 3 so implementers and = deployers know what behavior to expect. - Ralph >=20 > --=20 > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20= > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From esko.dijk@philips.com Tue May 21 00:15:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3C821F9625 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 00:15:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.885, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fiak38MQLiYZ for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 00:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.185]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA4121F92BB for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 00:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail204-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.252) by CH1EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (10.43.70.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:15:37 +0000 Received: from mail204-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail204-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A6D20713 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:15:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.7.222; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:mail.philips.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -28 X-BigFish: VPS-28(zz15d6O9251J542I217bIdd85kzz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1155h) Received: from mail204-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail204-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1369120535590865_27628; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (snatpool2.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.235]) by mail204-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848F340008A for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.philips.com (157.55.7.222) by CH1EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (10.43.70.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:15:35 +0000 Received: from 011-DB3MMR1-012.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com (10.128.28.96) by 011-DB3MMR1-004.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com (10.128.28.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.11; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:14:34 +0000 Received: from 011-DB3MPN2-082.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([169.254.2.161]) by 011-DB3MMR1-012.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([10.128.28.96]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:14:33 +0000 From: "Dijk, Esko" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 sent to IESG? Thread-Index: AQHOVZtheFpNp/aIQkeg6c0F6q9sOpkOyOWAgABw6JA= Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 07:14:33 +0000 Message-ID: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618C30D5D@011-DB3MPN2-082.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <5F047F29-26B3-4EC5-9AF7-7CCD9122A48E@gmail.com> <2459.1369096083@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <2459.1369096083@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [188.207.100.36] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: philips.com Subject: Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 sent to IESG? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 07:15:44 -0000 For the open tickets: see e.g. http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/quer= y?status=3Dassigned&status=3Dnew&status=3Dreopened&component=3Dtrickle-mcas= t&order=3Dpriority IMO all open tickets should be closed (in the tool) before proceeding with = IESG review...? Esko -----Original Message----- From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mic= hael Richardson Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 02:28 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Subject: Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 sent to IESG? >>>>> "Ralph" =3D=3D Ralph Droms writes: Ralph> According to the e-mail below, Ralph> draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 the authors were asked to Ralph> revise draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 to address some Ralph> responses posted to the WG last call. Reviewing the mailing Ralph> list, there were a couple of additional issues posted after Ralph> the WG last call ended. I see that the document has been Ralph> sent to the IESG without the requested revisions. If I have Ralph> that right, may we be informed about why the document was Ralph> sent out of the WG without the requested revisions? okay, so here is what is going on. *I* pushed the button to take it out of WG LC, because we had done that. It seems that really we are missing a datatracker state, because the next s= tep is IESG, and really, the next step is at least, Shepard Write-Up. I am unaware of the changes that were requested during WG LC. Was there an issue other than the code point? Were there tickets open? I will look through the mailing list archives. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally p= rotected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addre= ssee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified tha= t any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is st= rictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipien= t, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the= original message. From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed May 22 07:09:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68B921F9409 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:09:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OeVZcJ0PiOwa for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330E221F9227 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB0A2016E for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id BA75463A7E; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:08:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAC963A7C for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:08:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: References: <5F047F29-26B3-4EC5-9AF7-7CCD9122A48E@gmail.com> <2459.1369096083@sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) 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] draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 sent to IESG? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:09:08 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Ralph" =3D=3D Ralph Droms writes: >>>>>>> "Ralph" =3D=3D Ralph Droms writes: Ralph> According to the e-mail below, Ralph> draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 the authors were asked to Ralph> revise draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 to address some Ralph> responses posted to the WG last call. Reviewing the mailing Ralph> list, there were a couple of additional issues posted after Ralph> the WG last call ended. I see that the document has been Ralph> sent to the IESG without the requested revisions. If I have Ralph> that right, may we be informed about why the document was Ralph> sent out of the WG without the requested revisions?=20 >> okay, so here is what is going on. >> *I* pushed the button to take it out of WG LC, because we had done t= hat. Ralph> Sorry, I don't know what "that" refers to. As far as I can Ralph> tell, the document has not been revised in response to any of Ralph> the WG last call comments.=20 "That" refers to WG LC. I now see this state, "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up", which I swear wasn't there before. I have changed the state back to "WG Document" =2D-=20 ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh network= s [=20 ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect= [=20 ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails = [=20 =09 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAUZzRT4qHRg3pndX9AQIELAQAz7Sb72m9msx8c1yaUgaIc5+uaj3r7c6Z v3dhweU4obZiro4IXJ5c5Hq3MnpkaEkPxN6hYif+dDONYZFp71bEBw6fp+cTi4Ae IUDCQ4Tef45Ln4X0+L3T/SpBvuGXDc/tEy0JHAhPQCZ+vfz6qmWfaRpC5L9zlx1O D7+HNzP9+1I= =sWJx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed May 22 09:40:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A768621F9206 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:40:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MRYQnhbM1YSC for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9447321F9195 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4MGeVE9002634; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:40:31 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4MGeTEc002599 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 22 May 2013 17:40:30 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 17:40:29 +0100 Message-ID: <027b01ce570b$12772ce0$376586a0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac5XCwY4RthtXe6qQtyi1BaItg6GGg== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: [Roll] Status of draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:40:42 -0000 Hi, Reading the recent thread, I assume that the publication request (made by setting the document state to "Submitted to IESG for Publication") was made in error. I have stopped my AD review and put the IESG document state into "AD is Watching" pending receiving another publication request. In the meantime, two things... 1. My review so far. I hadn't got very far, and don't have much, but if the document is open for edits, you might as well have what I noted up to now. --- The first paragraph of Section 1 would benefit from some citations for "traditional IPv6 multicast routing and forwarding." --- I found section 3 rather sparse. Questions it might be nice to answer include: - can this be run over a wired (non-lossy, non-constrained environment) - should this be contained at the LBR, and if so, can mcast traffic be gatewayed into the Internet - can MPL operate in a mixed environment where not all routers are MPL capable? - do the hosts need to be in any way aware that their mcast is supported by MPL? --- 2. Code point allocation. Unfortunately, the mistaken publication request arrived just when the IESG and IANA were going to agree on the revised early allocation. Seeing that the document would go to the IANA for review in just a few days, we agreed not to do anything about the revised early allocation request. Now that the document will presumably be delayed by some time, I will restart the revised early allocation request and try to expedite it. Thanks, Adrian From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed May 22 09:43:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A930F21F95FB for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:43:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Y6o0Uhfxdg1 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98B521F9195 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4MGgraS014508 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:42:53 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4MGgq0m014493 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 17:42:52 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 17:42:52 +0100 Message-ID: <028201ce570b$67370980$35a51c80$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac5XC2V2IRbQQCiIRhy5nQytytrprA== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [Roll] IETF Last Call on draft-ietf-lwig-terminology-04.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:43:00 -0000 Hi, Please be aware of this IETF last call. it seems to me that much of the terminology defined in this document is relevant to your work. Review comments should be sent as described in the mail, below, and *not* to this list. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: lwip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lwip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The > IESG > Sent: 22 May 2013 17:21 > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: lwip@ietf.org > Subject: [Lwip] Last Call: (Terminology for > Constrained Node Networks) to Informational RFC > > > The IESG has received a request from the Light-Weight Implementation > Guidance WG (lwig) to consider the following document: > - 'Terminology for Constrained Node Networks' > as Informational RFC > > 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 2013-06-05. 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 > > > The Internet Protocol Suite is increasingly used on small devices > with severe constraints, creating constrained node networks. This > document provides a number of basic terms that have turned out to be > useful in the standardization work for constrained environments. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-terminology/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-terminology/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > Lwip@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 22 11:54:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6579711E812D for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:54:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7KqwiNNjtz0 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7F611E8126 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53307 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UfEAo-0004bk-Cu; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:54:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 18:54:06 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/127#comment:3 Message-ID: <082.72c5a9891b8bd491f6f179f8ae4f2d47@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 127 In-Reply-To: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 18:54:11 -0000 #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): From Adrian Farrel The first paragraph of Section 1 would benefit from some citations for "traditional IPv6 multicast routing and forwarding." -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed May 22 12:02:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC94411E8106 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Fd3rKzzLUvz for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EB011E80E3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54078 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UfEJL-0005H1-P6; Wed, 22 May 2013 21:02:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:02:55 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/128#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.e9e5b084c3fbb31fa78f35745f86d556@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 128 In-Reply-To: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:02:58 -0000 #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): From Adrian Farrel about section 3 Applicability Statement - can this be run over a wired (non-lossy, non-constrained environment) - should this be contained at the LBR, and if so, can mcast traffic be gatewayed into the Internet - can MPL operate in a mixed environment where not all routers are MPL capable? - do the hosts need to be in any way aware that their mcast is supported by MPL? Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07957.html -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Wed May 22 12:31:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E5C11E80AE for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:31:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ts0qWJlZIAHN for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-x22d.google.com (mail-gg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA60D11E80E3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-gg0-f173.google.com with SMTP id l4so823922ggn.18 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:31:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=utLqg9h+VWjLWTV1dRWTRll2mAF30t6W/VQwLacJ3dg=; b=F2ZG0I/OIr43Aj9wXZxPXrhEuOg1r7VkaBtpowNWav/fhE1x0CV9TIexBGlAk//yJJ 1ehsy9X/Ae8o/IfV0jeZsEYU238aao0+hvm2F/zCUg2KJYi2CNtz+aHCFyJUUcmb+D5H l0ZpoGntdR+W1jtZnCkC9QriRTm4vcEj+ANd3Aa39FIl2DkbdChAA4S90mBwZZ2uVoOj Hd19FAPGBQ/yP5VY9ztjXbZZrmLVIu+upvWSzGrQehiyO0wW49Ad9MVOd4P86UfCzFhJ Oee0mVxB296bkF462NW0A+BB4NeK/vV6cG2rZEWmuRDdHtvyOuYxHDUBya3KyJnlnOat yooQ== X-Received: by 10.236.129.98 with SMTP id g62mr6417426yhi.63.1369251080251; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.86.255.111] (198-135-0-233.cisco.com. [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f30sm4819226yhi.21.2013.05.22.12.31.17 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 May 2013 12:31:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Droms Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 22:31:14 +0300 References: <20130522191522.2297.24938.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Subject: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-00.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:31:29 -0000 FYI - this document is related to draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast. It = redefines IPv6 multicast scope 0x03 so that = draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast can formally define the use of scope 0x03 = in trickle multicast. - Ralph Begin forwarded message: > From: > Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-00.txt > Date: May 22, 2013 10:15:22 PM GMT+03:00 > To: Ralph Droms >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Ralph Droms and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes > Revision: 00 > Title: IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes > Creation date: 2013-05-22 > Group: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 3 > URL: = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-00.t= xt > Status: = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes > Htmlized: = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-00 >=20 >=20 > Abstract: > This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 From cabo@tzi.org Wed May 22 12:35:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E4B21F96AD; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.207 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kS9hrJurIH2Z; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:35:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 1845821F96AB; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:35:53 -0700 (PDT) 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 (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4MJZhAb014085; Wed, 22 May 2013 21:35:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54891D40.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.29.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46B9E3988; Wed, 22 May 2013 21:35:43 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Carsten Bormann Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:35:42 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <94615427-3EA3-4487-8057-FECB2841291E@tzi.org> References: <20130522162039.28519.8235.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: "core@ietf.org (core@ietf.org)" , " WG" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Subject: [Roll] Fwd: Last Call: (Terminology for Constrained Node Networks) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:35:59 -0000 This draft is intended to be useful for the entire constrained = node/network cluster. The present IETF last-call has already been forwarded to 6lowpan and = coman, so I'm forwarding it to core and roll. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten Begin forwarded message: > From: The IESG > Subject: Last Call: (Terminology = for Constrained Node Networks) to Informational RFC > Date: May 22, 2013 18:20:39 +0200 > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: lwip@ietf.org > Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org >=20 >=20 > The IESG has received a request from the Light-Weight Implementation > Guidance WG (lwig) to consider the following document: > - 'Terminology for Constrained Node Networks' > as Informational RFC >=20 > 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 2013-06-05. 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. >=20 > Abstract >=20 >=20 > The Internet Protocol Suite is increasingly used on small devices > with severe constraints, creating constrained node networks. This > document provides a number of basic terms that have turned out to be > useful in the standardization work for constrained environments. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-terminology/ >=20 > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-terminology/ballot/ >=20 >=20 > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >=20 >=20 >=20 From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 23 07:22:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFBB21F95FC for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:22:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rakAU9NyzmD1 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0180821F95EC for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50978 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UfWPZ-0005TX-IK; Thu, 23 May 2013 16:22:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:22:33 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/132#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.0bef733b126cf9710dd42e4c49cbbd08@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 132 In-Reply-To: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:22:37 -0000 #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): From Ralph Dorms this document - draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes - is related to draft- ietf-roll-trickle-mcast. It redefines IPv6 multicast scope 0x03 so that draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast can formally define the use of scope 0x03 in trickle multicast. Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07961.html -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri May 24 06:20:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5BA21F8F0F for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:20:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iPLSlpg4xj2C for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD9721F8F0A for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A1120171; Fri, 24 May 2013 09:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 65E0D63A7E; Fri, 24 May 2013 09:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4668363A7C; Fri, 24 May 2013 09:19:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: roll@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <067.0cf091d70127989abbccb3b339b77920@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.0cf091d70127989abbccb3b339b77920@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) 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: mariainesrobles@gmail.com, tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #122: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- CIA model fails to differentiate authentication, integrity, and authorization X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:20:24 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "roll" =3D=3D roll issue tracker writ= es: roll> * s1/s3/3.1/3.2: The CIA model is one that's great, but in s3 you= r list roll> security services list starts off with "proper authorization for = actions" roll> and then talk about authentication next. Clearly authorization a= nd roll> authentication need to be added in to s3.2 -no? Any chance of ju= st roll> changing to the 5 (confidentiality, integrity, authentication, ac= cess roll> control, and non-repudiation) listed in ISO 7498-2? You ever roll> get a stable Are there some experts on ISO 7498-2 in the WG? =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) iQCVAwUAUZ9oxYqHRg3pndX9AQLLdQQAouWFr+4mr/jaaSPXC0KWumtLlFFXUScF Sy3A4xq0ZKLnHCbF6f38KQppc5hbBBBjr1WxLBRzyzjlQk22OhRHUBrTVB6NOdhF 8t8oNY0WZI6wU2Fmh73FPWPX3550eetRUp1gaBAFh56WG4XsLoJZAQLogEA6kWDo jyR5gLk3+9A= =zn2m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri May 24 13:16:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C5C11E80FC for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:16:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MJJi7Yf507Nf for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488A721E805E for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4OKGJJR022813; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:16:19 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4OKGIkl022788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 May 2013 21:16:19 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 21:16:17 +0100 Message-ID: <075a01ce58bb$8ce9e330$a6bda990$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac5Yu4niYRPyfiezSFmK0DkRxXqdVA== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: mariainesrobles@googlemail.com, roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Roll] draft-ietf-roll-security-threats returned to working group X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:16:28 -0000 Hi, draft-ietf-roll-security-threats went through IESG evaluation at the end of March. It collected three Discusses and a number of Comments. These have now been converted into tickets. After discussion with the chairs, I am returning the I-D to the working group for more polish and a further working group last call. When you are ready, please send me a new publication request and we will take the draft forward again. Thanks for your work, Adrian From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri May 24 13:24:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 375F711E8108 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:24:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.289, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iFK4JhK7DZSl for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5983111E8112 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4OKNeJk025360 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:23:40 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4OKNdF7025354 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:23:39 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <20130524200446.9059.78064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130524200446.9059.78064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 21:23:38 +0100 Message-ID: <075c01ce58bc$93866f00$ba934d00$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHuT8k/wbyMhRnnvyd/g4chVJ/kS5jU2RHg Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:24:04 -0000 FYI > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of IESG > Secretary > Sent: 24 May 2013 21:05 > To: iana@iana.org > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > Subject: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast >=20 > IANA is requested to revise the early allocation previously made for = draft-ietf- > roll-roll-trickle-mcast. >=20 > In the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry > = (=E2=80=8Bhttp://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters= .xml) > in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" sub-registry... >=20 > Please revise the entry that reads > 0x4D 01 0 01101 Trickle Multicast Option = [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] > to read > 0x4D 01 0 01101 Deprecated >=20 > Please create a new early allocation entry that reads > 0x6D 01 1 01101 MPL Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] From ulrich@herberg.name Fri May 24 13:31:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FA421F930A for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:31:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.828 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.828 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U+vR+3GmpbMj for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x22e.google.com (mail-vb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4190E21F92F5 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 11so3340095vbe.19 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:31:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=grbbSHUiBUCCgKaoDvf8WrJAXn5v5Y4dwgLLljVhe1I=; b=XjKhYCasQjeLf9FdzuVbnVl6AWEytIEAxITJ7CuL64S9JTt1DqkZvm2stcyzDM1RUh 9NsQfiB5qBciOPA+cX8uZkYQjsDid/F0O3vdUxeOBW+57ev2A+GI6tFhqJAup/OIOa2T CDuwBMTPfjbl2KSfJ6WjXJDFfyrgQI/2zk2Xw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=grbbSHUiBUCCgKaoDvf8WrJAXn5v5Y4dwgLLljVhe1I=; b=QxZxCIr3qB9eW7ynY+6TU/M+c5jS3VLaYR6/zOfSEKDVY/AOD4xnMMeurt5vo708m4 C0op0BX7VhL0Hqww6Iwg8tdcgDWSiTHXRKX9NwLFIN1xIiYAQ++esj1gD+3xK0BR/ryp LU0124g53pf2eBejRZ4j0jkyl7225TdeJE6PjgqglcxB40W1UV6OQmswMq4S70jPApSU bE/N0tNTg4OnDxH0iNdo/xzh3GnmGvcFyAHpUNxHVgr9H2OjI3W3M12/RIkRfl6qFza/ dd/sXeC0SpZnSunJGkDj6D6aV4KQa87jjLxdygVO7BGEg5wVmVhYg2jxj8Zzx9zDaxfR LgHQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.22.36 with SMTP id a4mr9746863vef.28.1369427488740; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.195.134 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:31:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <075c01ce58bc$93866f00$ba934d00$@olddog.co.uk> References: <20130524200446.9059.78064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <075c01ce58bc$93866f00$ba934d00$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:31:28 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, roll WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmt7pKEFd21ksUixUXYZD8ke0o8PS+KtuxhDhknpn5LOsu4YPlJdOjXqL8dv1PQu8JF70zD Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:31:34 -0000 Adrian, does "deprecated" mean that this code point is not useable again for other protocols? Why can't it be "Unassigned" again (since the draft is not yet published as RFC)? Thanks Ulrich On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > FYI > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IESG >> Secretary >> Sent: 24 May 2013 21:05 >> To: iana@iana.org >> Cc: iesg@ietf.org >> Subject: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast >> >> IANA is requested to revise the early allocation previously made for draft-ietf- >> roll-roll-trickle-mcast. >> >> In the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry >> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xml) >> in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" sub-registry... >> >> Please revise the entry that reads >> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Trickle Multicast Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] >> to read >> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Deprecated >> >> Please create a new early allocation entry that reads >> 0x6D 01 1 01101 MPL Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri May 24 13:44:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B0411E8123 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:44:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.318 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.281, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MyHTzeJcpc2x for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E28211E811F for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4OKiBAc031520 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:44:11 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4OKiB9W031514 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:44:11 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <20130524181840.1900.71091.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130524181840.1900.71091.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 21:44:10 +0100 Message-ID: <076801ce58bf$71a3ef90$54ebceb0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHfMyEURbVWo19YoVjJssmeULhbWZjzF8Gw Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [Roll] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: 6lo -- Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:44:18 -0000 FYI > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce- > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat > Sent: 24 May 2013 19:19 > To: IETF Announcement List > Cc: cabo@tzi.org; rdroms.ietf@gmail.com; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: New Non-WG Mailing List: 6lo -- Mailing list for discussion = of a WG for > Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks >=20 >=20 > A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. >=20 > List address: 6lo@ietf.org > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lo/ > To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >=20 > Purpose: Since it was set up in 2005, the 6LoWPAN WG has created = specifications > for building IPv6 networks out of devices that use the IEEE 802.15.4 > wireless network standard. This work has culminated in the recent > publication of RFC 6775, 6LoWPAN-ND, and the 6LoWPAN WG is shutting = down. >=20 > This does not mean the work in this space is done. Indeed, 6LoWPAN > produced one more document that isn't even about 802.15.4: > draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle-12.txt, the equivalent of 6LoWPAN for the low > energy mode of the Bluetooth 4.0 specification, is now in IESG > processing, waiting for the assignment of a number from the Bluetooth > SIG. A number of related drafts want to apply 6LoWPAN technology to > other constrained node network layer 2 specifications: >=20 > -- draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz-00.txt > -- draft-ietf-6man-6lobac-01.txt > -- draft-mariager-6lowpan-v6over-dect-ule-02.txt >=20 > Also, some additional specifications are generally regarded as useful > complements of the existing 6LoWPAN work: >=20 > -- draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03.txt > -- draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-05.txt > -- draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-05.txt > -- draft-bormann-6lowpan-roadmap-03.txt >=20 > Beyond that, some older proposals that the 6LoWPAN WG has not picked > up are receiving new attention: >=20 > -- draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router-03.txt > -- draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags-01.txt >=20 > Finally, there are some architectural issues raised by 6LoWPAN's use > of adaptation layer fragmentation on top of a lossy radio: >=20 > -- draft-bormann-intarea-alfi-02.txt >=20 > As can be seen, these drafts have been addressed to a zoo of working > groups, including the sunsetting 6LoWPAN WG, the 6MAN WG, INTAREA, and > even ROLL, with the addressed WG often changing over the lifetime of a > draft. It is probably more productive to focus most of this closely > related work on a specific WG. >=20 > One clear candidate is the 6man WG. However, that WG has a number of > other duties in maintaining IPv6 that make it subscribing to its > mailing list too onerous to the group of experts interested in > constrained node networking. It is probably worth separating out the > 6man-related work that focuses on constrained node networks. There > are, however, architectural aspects that are indeed best left in 6man > or even INTAREA. The 6Lo mailing list has been set up to organize the > discussion of a charter for a potential working group that focuses on > IP-over-foo standardization (adaptation layers) for constrained node > networks, working closely with the INT area working groups and other > IETF WGs focused on constrained node networks. >=20 > For additional information, please contact the list administrators. From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri May 24 13:50:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABC511E8136 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:50:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.326 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.273, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sLpRWtphiv99 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2967C11E8132 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4OKoHrk009130; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:50:17 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4OKoFLm009110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 May 2013 21:50:15 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Ulrich Herberg'" , "'roll WG'" References: <20130524200446.9059.78064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <075c01ce58bc$93866f00$ba934d00$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 21:50:14 +0100 Message-ID: <076c01ce58c0$4b5945f0$e20bd1d0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHuT8k/wbyMhRnnvyd/g4chVJ/kSwLhyxINAup/EAaYpn01MA== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:50:27 -0000 The general problem with early allocation is that the entry is placed in the IANA registry and from that point onwards folk can rightfully interpret the codepoint as having the meaning documented in the registry. Therefore, there might reasonably be implementations (code or 'just' diagnostic tools like sniffers) that have shipped and that use the old code point. The way that IANA handle this is that they deprecate and do not claim back until the registry is crowded, allowing as long as possible before re-use. As it happens, with this registry, there is a preference for allocations based only on the "rest" bits even though the entries are tracked separately on the full 8 bits. Thus, in this case, the new and old codepoints are effectively the same. For more details on early allocations read RFC 4020 and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cotton-rfc4020bis/ Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name] > Sent: 24 May 2013 21:31 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; roll WG > Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast > > Adrian, > > does "deprecated" mean that this code point is not useable again for > other protocols? Why can't it be "Unassigned" again (since the draft > is not yet published as RFC)? > > > Thanks > Ulrich > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > FYI > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > IESG > >> Secretary > >> Sent: 24 May 2013 21:05 > >> To: iana@iana.org > >> Cc: iesg@ietf.org > >> Subject: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast > >> > >> IANA is requested to revise the early allocation previously made for draft-ietf- > >> roll-roll-trickle-mcast. > >> > >> In the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry > >> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xml) > >> in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" sub-registry... > >> > >> Please revise the entry that reads > >> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Trickle Multicast Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] > >> to read > >> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Deprecated > >> > >> Please create a new early allocation entry that reads > >> 0x6D 01 1 01101 MPL Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Roll mailing list > > Roll@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From ulrich@herberg.name Fri May 24 13:57:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F5111E8132 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4OlAdhHxsOtn for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x236.google.com (mail-vb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2736321F8FA3 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id f13so3446021vbg.27 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QRjMQnppSXKvcPk34AY5T3DiH2jAJyjwVUCHlC7rFdk=; b=T4z3OMRi41CXRVHE8aKi4ABhb1Rf2FllJVytIHJ2Ovv8x6QqZ/cixqoAaHWPItfzk4 4b/lQA3Q1rcFZAhrG3RkJ+z2vbe0WnFDvJozwiTxpKrgBLzcXaM4RKQBdC7I+xcScOJS soEK2HOBmm0MbUHBYwFM1NcCGBUWy7Vt6t/Qk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=QRjMQnppSXKvcPk34AY5T3DiH2jAJyjwVUCHlC7rFdk=; b=GUcrAsH22sWkEZwLBiHRTKia5YKtM6COhRDD7Rv3/CJfIrDMcbHQkIRmEqTm8Q7w7b ncTdkyjopwI76KqhIg8/C1KmOqCGe3sPkFVjtrirNfaTSR/uROP6/LmdwLK5iD+Kp3q1 MEPLNFtVM4j+aVkeoxdo2WVmU0G5xlVPb20iAOF3oIqURs/PfUnFfdvl/TALSQdzydke ni6m856tW/mElf/8j5Gc2ATXJz7aGKTXCisIiVBXh7CR/DUzDmJ1AKX+pVtZLzohJ5u9 k3pMI4EIX0UJTYGpDPk6P1CMP/HZRz0+nqYnIdrPJsGPEJQXDzNNmkeE6ghfc5btTYA7 rO3A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.53.138 with SMTP id m10mr9763777vcg.29.1369429076384; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.195.134 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <076c01ce58c0$4b5945f0$e20bd1d0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <20130524200446.9059.78064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <075c01ce58bc$93866f00$ba934d00$@olddog.co.uk> <076c01ce58c0$4b5945f0$e20bd1d0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:56 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmD0J+9yf2H6L3Ym0XYJsfKMAJGJokBPp+Uc+jUTupTKH4OnHhxkOitr6k8TxQ6veaJy2Wl Cc: roll WG Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:57:58 -0000 Adrian, thank you very much for the explanation. Is there any good reason for early (permanent) allocations? As long as a document still changes, this same problem could occur again for other drafts in the future. Regards Ulrich On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > The general problem with early allocation is that the entry is placed in the > IANA registry and from that point onwards folk can rightfully interpret the > codepoint as having the meaning documented in the registry. Therefore, there > might reasonably be implementations (code or 'just' diagnostic tools like > sniffers) that have shipped and that use the old code point. > > The way that IANA handle this is that they deprecate and do not claim back until > the registry is crowded, allowing as long as possible before re-use. > > As it happens, with this registry, there is a preference for allocations based > only on the "rest" bits even though the entries are tracked separately on the > full 8 bits. Thus, in this case, the new and old codepoints are effectively the > same. > > For more details on early allocations read RFC 4020 and > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cotton-rfc4020bis/ > > Cheers, > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name] >> Sent: 24 May 2013 21:31 >> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; roll WG >> Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for > draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast >> >> Adrian, >> >> does "deprecated" mean that this code point is not useable again for >> other protocols? Why can't it be "Unassigned" again (since the draft >> is not yet published as RFC)? >> >> >> Thanks >> Ulrich >> >> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> > FYI >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> IESG >> >> Secretary >> >> Sent: 24 May 2013 21:05 >> >> To: iana@iana.org >> >> Cc: iesg@ietf.org >> >> Subject: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast >> >> >> >> IANA is requested to revise the early allocation previously made for > draft-ietf- >> >> roll-roll-trickle-mcast. >> >> >> >> In the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry >> >> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xml) >> >> in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" sub-registry... >> >> >> >> Please revise the entry that reads >> >> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Trickle Multicast Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] >> >> to read >> >> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Deprecated >> >> >> >> Please create a new early allocation entry that reads >> >> 0x6D 01 1 01101 MPL Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Roll mailing list >> > Roll@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Sat May 25 03:53:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D6B21F918C for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:53:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gOxjKdYWfkUa for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-f42.google.com (mail-qe0-f42.google.com [209.85.128.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9356121F958B for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f42.google.com with SMTP id cz11so3076715qeb.15 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:53:41 -0700 (PDT) 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:x-mailer; bh=RNT1Jwd/6+ENS0Rb79pGbd2QV+YJgP/dd9l3K7UJ5h4=; b=f3UKEijOM+Li6RktI8Pj1kxPG+rD5iGL4Y9gKdht2JD24FGiWIjzGNDRuwnmu06dty APo0IORtuLG7kbwxsZo02/n3vBLtYRK257+lDcDkh2DhTyUX5KvZwgGyofLaacihCAj9 46FD3hZFqXRXdeFK9baPGjKzEcrt9S+QHHskQETit3g2CZ9NXTujIB8IygX2P3o1ilSg 0hPRuUaC/ETfqe5h0iFnHQRESZPSh8yED0oYL0cmzmIcWcZbA70d8B9i/AFkOB2AENRL QvpcPbh42fA4EL+rziPcN73jV4X4AAgHBSMq/bjwhSKs9kzprXSU6hoMXrbwfzb7LdPc fUzw== X-Received: by 10.224.43.3 with SMTP id u3mr19959655qae.92.1369479221152; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:2481:20:1dc0:7216:c62a:4749? ([2001:420:2481:20:1dc0:7216:c62a:4749]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oh9sm16158444qeb.5.2013.05.25.03.53.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 25 May 2013 03:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 06:53:37 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4FE25020-0605-4B35-BFD1-8E01A5582E1D@gmail.com> References: <20130524200446.9059.78064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <075c01ce58bc$93866f00$ba934d00$@olddog.co.uk> <076c01ce58c0$4b5945f0$e20bd1d0$@olddog.co.uk> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Subject: Re: [Roll] Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:53:49 -0000 On May 24, 2013, at 4:57 PM 5/24/13, Ulrich Herberg = wrote: > Adrian, >=20 > thank you very much for the explanation. >=20 > Is there any good reason for early (permanent) allocations? As long as > a document still changes, this same problem could occur again for > other drafts in the future. I'll make an explanation here as I initially submitted the request for = an early allocation. Some early allocations are requested to cooperate with other SDOs that = produce documents dependent on IETF documents and code point = allocations. In this specific case, I requested the early allocation on = behalf of ZigBee Alliance, which has incorporated a reference to = draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast in its "ZigBee IP Specification" (ZigBee = Public Document 13-002r00; available for free available by request here: = http://www.zigbee.org/Specifications/ZigBeeIP/Download.aspx). An early allocation in a case like this is unusual; the IETF prefers = that SDOs wait to publish their own documents until the referenced IETF = documents are published (or, at least, in the RFC Editor queue and = unlikely to change). I requested the early allocation as ZA has had a = deadline in place for publication of "ZigBee IP Specification" for some = time and it seemed to me, at the time I made the request, that = draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast was unlikely to change the codepoint = before publication. - Ralph >=20 > Regards > Ulrich >=20 > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Adrian Farrel = wrote: >> The general problem with early allocation is that the entry is placed = in the >> IANA registry and from that point onwards folk can rightfully = interpret the >> codepoint as having the meaning documented in the registry. = Therefore, there >> might reasonably be implementations (code or 'just' diagnostic tools = like >> sniffers) that have shipped and that use the old code point. >>=20 >> The way that IANA handle this is that they deprecate and do not claim = back until >> the registry is crowded, allowing as long as possible before re-use. >>=20 >> As it happens, with this registry, there is a preference for = allocations based >> only on the "rest" bits even though the entries are tracked = separately on the >> full 8 bits. Thus, in this case, the new and old codepoints are = effectively the >> same. >>=20 >> For more details on early allocations read RFC 4020 and >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cotton-rfc4020bis/ >>=20 >> Cheers, >> Adrian >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name] >>> Sent: 24 May 2013 21:31 >>> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; roll WG >>> Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for >> draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast >>>=20 >>> Adrian, >>>=20 >>> does "deprecated" mean that this code point is not useable again for >>> other protocols? Why can't it be "Unassigned" again (since the draft >>> is not yet published as RFC)? >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Thanks >>> Ulrich >>>=20 >>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Adrian Farrel = wrote: >>>> FYI >>>>=20 >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of >>> IESG >>>>> Secretary >>>>> Sent: 24 May 2013 21:05 >>>>> To: iana@iana.org >>>>> Cc: iesg@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: Revised Early Allocation for = draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast >>>>>=20 >>>>> IANA is requested to revise the early allocation previously made = for >> draft-ietf- >>>>> roll-roll-trickle-mcast. >>>>>=20 >>>>> In the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry >>>>> = (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xml) >>>>> in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" = sub-registry... >>>>>=20 >>>>> Please revise the entry that reads >>>>> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Trickle Multicast Option = [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] >>>>> to read >>>>> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Deprecated >>>>>=20 >>>>> Please create a new early allocation entry that reads >>>>> 0x6D 01 1 01101 MPL Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] >>>>=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 From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sat May 25 03:54:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF7521F946F for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:54:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.252, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Ktg5zQPzN5V for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:54:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E04621F95EE for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4PAsLEB028713; Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:21 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4PAsKgo028706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:20 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Ulrich Herberg'" References: <20130524200446.9059.78064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <075c01ce58bc$93866f00$ba934d00$@olddog.co.uk> <076c01ce58c0$4b5945f0$e20bd1d0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:18 +0100 Message-ID: <07bf01ce5936$35322d70$9f968850$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHuT8k/wbyMhRnnvyd/g4chVJ/kSwLhyxINAup/EAYBYZyfTgJIj0xrmIoXuOA= Content-Language: en-gb Cc: 'roll WG' Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:54:38 -0000 All allocations are permanent (until they are deprecated). All code points mentioned in I-Ds are nonsense until they appear in a registry. Thus, an I-D that says allocate the value x from this registry, is just being hopeful and anyone implementing it (or, more important, anyone deploying it) is taking a gamble. Thus, early allocation is invented to handle the case where an I-D is reported to be stable, and implementations are starting or well advanced toward deployment (again, look at RFC 4020). This can help bridge the gap between documentation and deployment which would otherwise be gated on RFC publication. Note that this issue does not arise for new protocols that create their own registries because in those cases there is no competition for codepoints in existing registries. A > -----Original Message----- > From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name] > Sent: 24 May 2013 21:58 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: roll WG > Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast > > Adrian, > > thank you very much for the explanation. > > Is there any good reason for early (permanent) allocations? As long as > a document still changes, this same problem could occur again for > other drafts in the future. > > Regards > Ulrich > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > The general problem with early allocation is that the entry is placed in the > > IANA registry and from that point onwards folk can rightfully interpret the > > codepoint as having the meaning documented in the registry. Therefore, there > > might reasonably be implementations (code or 'just' diagnostic tools like > > sniffers) that have shipped and that use the old code point. > > > > The way that IANA handle this is that they deprecate and do not claim back until > > the registry is crowded, allowing as long as possible before re-use. > > > > As it happens, with this registry, there is a preference for allocations based > > only on the "rest" bits even though the entries are tracked separately on the > > full 8 bits. Thus, in this case, the new and old codepoints are effectively the > > same. > > > > For more details on early allocations read RFC 4020 and > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cotton-rfc4020bis/ > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name] > >> Sent: 24 May 2013 21:31 > >> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; roll WG > >> Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for > > draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast > >> > >> Adrian, > >> > >> does "deprecated" mean that this code point is not useable again for > >> other protocols? Why can't it be "Unassigned" again (since the draft > >> is not yet published as RFC)? > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> Ulrich > >> > >> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >> > FYI > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > >> IESG > >> >> Secretary > >> >> Sent: 24 May 2013 21:05 > >> >> To: iana@iana.org > >> >> Cc: iesg@ietf.org > >> >> Subject: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast > >> >> > >> >> IANA is requested to revise the early allocation previously made for > > draft-ietf- > >> >> roll-roll-trickle-mcast. > >> >> > >> >> In the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry > >> >> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6- > parameters.xml) > >> >> in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" sub-registry... > >> >> > >> >> Please revise the entry that reads > >> >> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Trickle Multicast Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] > >> >> to read > >> >> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Deprecated > >> >> > >> >> Please create a new early allocation entry that reads > >> >> 0x6D 01 1 01101 MPL Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Roll mailing list > >> > Roll@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Sat May 25 09:05:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C57F21F84FD for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kIytmaOE2LLl for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A4921F84F2 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46477 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UgGxy-0001fJ-RK; Sat, 25 May 2013 18:05:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 16:05:10 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/114#comment:2 Message-ID: <073.d87e945b29dfc76bbebec2a29f3a62af@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <058.01a618d1a7b5cd8b99d1962f7773d556@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 114 In-Reply-To: <058.01a618d1a7b5cd8b99d1962f7773d556@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 Resent-Message-Id: <20130525160515.88A4921F84F2@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #114: mcast option number changed X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 16:05:16 -0000 #114: mcast option number changed Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: From iesg-bounces Sent: 24 May 2013 21:05 In the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xml) in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" sub-registry... entry that reads 0x4D 01 0 01101 Trickle Multicast Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] to read 0x4D 01 0 01101 Deprecated Please create a new early allocation entry that reads 0x6D 01 1 01101 MPL Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07966.html -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-roll-trickle- mcr@sandelman.ca | mcast@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle- | Version: mcast | Resolution: fixed Severity: Submitted | WG Document | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From ulrich@herberg.name Sat May 25 09:19:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174F521F8517 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:19:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.928 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.928 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nYFtQDl+GElD for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x22b.google.com (mail-vb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D29821F8503 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e12so1541691vbg.2 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:19:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hyl5w0argCFmieFXp59jOjmSh3zUT9TurOuKHTN/XE4=; b=cS6rIf0BIorE69wIRGJUG1PXv1wxfLdZozoJbqNpcD1FnvFlWnYto6N1xE+i+HyCkT Xtd+dotGhEyluNPl0h9mHOfTRnNFzR0fp0kYgsDuqG5QeFB2ejNzvpPZy0OehekzlIdV 7VRv9csBQqXu3paOvb1YOBFpVcYxyJwj70ytk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=Hyl5w0argCFmieFXp59jOjmSh3zUT9TurOuKHTN/XE4=; b=H2McNCgKrpfLsyp/qcXt4gMX73A9KxKxfmUw+V5lN3n2VyEyyLQ7iNdSzp1pbPnLta YmM8SfQJYr/VScXPC5q0vKSZ+wzLdH3t/F8/5E8qomKwBMTHJ+ZgJydYPD7OW0wDe/Qf L1urGb1RHp6aRjwC01/yx1uUAii7olpcVs2UrW0unOI3slwkNb2rpZH+0O12E3Xndzyb Ie9Dem9xGbFm71Bf1cIZbWm+7potpxbKA3/7UbLiR/er376d1Przu9aGLTsDY1+lsKp8 FqzA/LjlC+Nhhd+jG9ip+7UFgLWCUc5qG4SP7WGg6c4UHI1OPkhRX+nrcUli7gZ6kGeQ YzYA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.173.36 with SMTP id bh4mr11572896vec.9.1369498795026; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.166.134 with HTTP; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:19:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FE25020-0605-4B35-BFD1-8E01A5582E1D@gmail.com> References: <20130524200446.9059.78064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <075c01ce58bc$93866f00$ba934d00$@olddog.co.uk> <076c01ce58c0$4b5945f0$e20bd1d0$@olddog.co.uk> <4FE25020-0605-4B35-BFD1-8E01A5582E1D@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:19:54 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkLoNaILM1aVbc/N9t4s6FwzS3lZvPIfzPwnAVWwVNvT2W+VODxXSJfj0UUdkkxfc6TVRgu Subject: Re: [Roll] Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 16:19:57 -0000 Thank you, Ralph and Adrian for the clarification. Ulrich On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > On May 24, 2013, at 4:57 PM 5/24/13, Ulrich Herberg = wrote: > >> Adrian, >> >> thank you very much for the explanation. >> >> Is there any good reason for early (permanent) allocations? As long as >> a document still changes, this same problem could occur again for >> other drafts in the future. > > I'll make an explanation here as I initially submitted the request for an= early allocation. > > Some early allocations are requested to cooperate with other SDOs that pr= oduce documents dependent on IETF documents and code point allocations. In= this specific case, I requested the early allocation on behalf of ZigBee A= lliance, which has incorporated a reference to draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcas= t in its "ZigBee IP Specification" (ZigBee Public Document 13-002r00; avail= able for free available by request here: http://www.zigbee.org/Specificatio= ns/ZigBeeIP/Download.aspx). > > An early allocation in a case like this is unusual; the IETF prefers that= SDOs wait to publish their own documents until the referenced IETF documen= ts are published (or, at least, in the RFC Editor queue and unlikely to cha= nge). I requested the early allocation as ZA has had a deadline in place f= or publication of "ZigBee IP Specification" for some time and it seemed to = me, at the time I made the request, that draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast was = unlikely to change the codepoint before publication. > > - Ralph > >> >> Regards >> Ulrich >> >> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Adrian Farrel wro= te: >>> The general problem with early allocation is that the entry is placed i= n the >>> IANA registry and from that point onwards folk can rightfully interpret= the >>> codepoint as having the meaning documented in the registry. Therefore, = there >>> might reasonably be implementations (code or 'just' diagnostic tools li= ke >>> sniffers) that have shipped and that use the old code point. >>> >>> The way that IANA handle this is that they deprecate and do not claim b= ack until >>> the registry is crowded, allowing as long as possible before re-use. >>> >>> As it happens, with this registry, there is a preference for allocation= s based >>> only on the "rest" bits even though the entries are tracked separately = on the >>> full 8 bits. Thus, in this case, the new and old codepoints are effecti= vely the >>> same. >>> >>> For more details on early allocations read RFC 4020 and >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cotton-rfc4020bis/ >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Adrian >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name] >>>> Sent: 24 May 2013 21:31 >>>> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; roll WG >>>> Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: Revised Early Allocation for >>> draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast >>>> >>>> Adrian, >>>> >>>> does "deprecated" mean that this code point is not useable again for >>>> other protocols? Why can't it be "Unassigned" again (since the draft >>>> is not yet published as RFC)? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Ulrich >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Adrian Farrel w= rote: >>>>> FYI >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf= Of >>>> IESG >>>>>> Secretary >>>>>> Sent: 24 May 2013 21:05 >>>>>> To: iana@iana.org >>>>>> Cc: iesg@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Revised Early Allocation for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast >>>>>> >>>>>> IANA is requested to revise the early allocation previously made for >>> draft-ietf- >>>>>> roll-roll-trickle-mcast. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry >>>>>> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xml= ) >>>>>> in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" sub-registry... >>>>>> >>>>>> Please revise the entry that reads >>>>>> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Trickle Multicast Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mc= ast] >>>>>> to read >>>>>> 0x4D 01 0 01101 Deprecated >>>>>> >>>>>> Please create a new early allocation entry that reads >>>>>> 0x6D 01 1 01101 MPL Option [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 From h.kermajani9@gmail.com Mon May 27 13:49:48 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B499521F8EBE for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:49:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ci+v8Qdr1h7p for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BFD21F8EB1 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id e14so869460iej.15 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:49:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=jj/fP6hkPuxa5sqpFoVO10WYo0uzdWp5pZScxakx38I=; b=PMakAMhpx86FIRNa2seK1dkH8990cFg/wxZGkLmNo7c+d34OpyXbYXpbvLR7be7hem tKmtW4ODiPn9rYBqYiqZH8tzIpv6qMEamC0RM4JVDUPqY97wrsIpN9OEEIJ2JtcfJmEa adyLO6n8alvJwh8NIiAbSi+F3NFEhZH6cuVIxSxkMmHVN9Cz7cHMATC2EBwly04fCXZY bk6/9UmdopzfpIvyOOZ02tqeTa7tCtkhUdbTZFh5jNX5mMAtR4+wGmxNd0KHQQphD7qY eEFEbMpgQYKXlMkylngSloIFhxSFkuaJV9QYZxsEJdNENsdQXSYWRWc5DnsgazWJyLjo wS7A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.72.49 with SMTP id a17mr5466409igv.36.1369687787908; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.33.17 with HTTP; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 22:49:47 +0200 Message-ID: From: Hamidreza Kermajani To: ROLL WG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc9e500d336a04ddb94a57 Subject: [Roll] Time-critical data delivery in P2P-RPL X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 20:49:48 -0000 --047d7bdc9e500d336a04ddb94a57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, I have a question about the draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl. Why the option "to piggyback time-critical application data on the routing messages" that was present in draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-16 was finally removed in -17? Thanks in advance. Regards, Hamidreza --047d7bdc9e500d336a04ddb94a57 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

I have a question about the=A0d= raft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl. Why the option "to piggyback time-critical application data o= n the=A0= routing messages" that was present in draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-16 was= =A0final= ly removed in -17?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Hamidreza


--047d7bdc9e500d336a04ddb94a57-- From prvs=85219a019=mukul@uwm.edu Mon May 27 14:22:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F24721F8EA4 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 14:22:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pDwhJfjw7bv8 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 14:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ip3mta.uwm.edu (ip3mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.192]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A9021F8E9A for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 14:22:06 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAMjNo1F/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABagziDO75MgR6DFwEBAQQBAQEgSxcPEQQBAQMCDRkCIwYoCAYTh3sDDwycbY5piEgNS4gbBIEmiyCCIzsGgjuBEwOJH4pKBYFngWaMHYUjgy2CCQ X-UWM-First: True Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323362E0E9B for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 16:22:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at Received: from mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bvznrf+stt+E for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 16:22:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.177]) by mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F3F2E0E9A for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 16:22:04 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:22:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Mukul Goyal To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: <982260278.738745.1369689724662.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [99.20.249.193] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.15_GA_2995 (ZimbraWebClient - SAF3 (Win)/6.0.15_GA_2995) X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu Subject: Re: [Roll] Time-critical data delivery in P2P-RPL X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:22:11 -0000 There were strong objections during the IESG review. It was felt that the mechanism did not consider all implications of carrying data in a routing message. IESG suggested writing a separate draft (in 6man WG) for this facility if it is considered necessary. Thanks Mukul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hamidreza Kermajani" To: "ROLL WG" Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:49:47 PM Subject: [Roll] Time-critical data delivery in P2P-RPL Hi all, I have a question about the draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl. W hy the option "to piggyback time-critical application data on the routing messages" that was present in draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-16 was finally removed in -17? Thanks in advance. Regards, Hamidreza _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll