From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 14 21:21:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EED221F84E6 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:21:35 -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=[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 diQi3uVHXo8k for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7039221F84DF for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SU9GB-0000VR-Q3; Tue, 15 May 2012 00:21:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: zach@sensinode.com, cabo@tzi.org X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 04:21:18 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/136#comment:2 Message-ID: <075.24b39a85d059e30f6ba4db1a60f594b8@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <060.3118482294de7d7aa192663aeb05650b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 136 In-Reply-To: <060.3118482294de7d7aa192663aeb05650b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: zach@sensinode.com, cabo@tzi.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:35:37 -0700 Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #136: IANA Comments X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 04:21:35 -0000 #136: IANA Comments Comment (by cabo@…): In section 12, add to the paragraph This document also requests IANA to create a new registry for the Status values of the Address Registration Option. the following text: Address Registration Option Status Values registry: Possible values are 8-bit unsigned integers (0..255). Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC5226]. Initial allocation is as follows: {{{ +--------+--------------------------------------------+ | Status | Description | +--------+--------------------------------------------+ | 0 | Success | | 1 | Duplicate Address | | 2 | Neighbor Cache Full | | 3-255 | Allocated using Standards Action [RFC5226] | +--------+--------------------------------------------+ }}} -- --------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: zach@… | Owner: zach@… Type: task | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: nd-small-fixes Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | --------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 14 21:24:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A6721F86B1 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:24:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 01I8OHU146iv for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2589021F86AD for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SU9Ig-0000qC-3T; Tue, 15 May 2012 00:23:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: zach@sensinode.com, cabo@tzi.org X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 04:23:54 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/136#comment:3 Message-ID: <075.83db467e51b461a5b093c4ea0643434c@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <060.3118482294de7d7aa192663aeb05650b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 136 In-Reply-To: <060.3118482294de7d7aa192663aeb05650b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: zach@sensinode.com, cabo@tzi.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:35:37 -0700 Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #136: IANA Comments X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 04:24:01 -0000 #136: IANA Comments Comment (by cabo@…): Re Action 1, Action 2: Do implementers have any preferences for the values assigned now that the initial proposed values are taken? (Unless they have any, we can simply remove our proposed values and ask IANA to assign new values.) -- --------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: zach@… | Owner: zach@… Type: task | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: nd-small-fixes Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | --------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 14 21:40:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7659E8014 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:40:30 -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=[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 5qnT5fPrYTFz for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D3D9E8006 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SU9Yc-0004nk-Fr; Tue, 15 May 2012 00:40:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com, cabo@tzi.org X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 04:40:22 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/139#comment:1 Message-ID: <088.faf03919da9c5f82763f6a70dd0bebcd@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <073.a4e8c24b571d301cc4dff0383ae42dde@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 139 In-Reply-To: <073.a4e8c24b571d301cc4dff0383ae42dde@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com, cabo@tzi.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:35:37 -0700 Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #139: Pascal's comments on adding sequence counter with registration X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 04:40:31 -0000 #139: Pascal's comments on adding sequence counter with registration Changes (by cabo@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => wontfix Comment: It appears that moving this work over to 6man is now the consensus forward. So we won't address this requirement within 6lowpan-nd. -- ----------------------------------+----------------------------------- Reporter: samita.chakrabarti@… | Owner: samita.chakrabarti@… Type: task | Status: closed Priority: minor | Milestone: nd-discusses Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: wontfix Keywords: | ----------------------------------+----------------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Fri May 18 13:15:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C8221F84FB for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:15:10 -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 kkAID-5RBrNI for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C8521F84FA for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SVTZg-0004nE-38; Fri, 18 May 2012 16:14:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: zach@sensinode.com, cabo@tzi.org X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 20:14:55 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/136#comment:4 Message-ID: <075.3303e2d38be077f6f45e01a06a938f50@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <060.3118482294de7d7aa192663aeb05650b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 136 In-Reply-To: <060.3118482294de7d7aa192663aeb05650b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: zach@sensinode.com, cabo@tzi.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #136: IANA Comments X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 20:15:11 -0000 #136: IANA Comments Comment (by cabo@…): Since that appears not to be the case, we should then also remove the paragraph and following list with the suggested values ("For the purpose..."). -- --------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: zach@… | Owner: zach@… Type: task | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: nd-small-fixes Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | --------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp Sun May 20 20:20:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4067621F855A for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 20:20:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 LLvXKwVLJEgK for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 20:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imx12.toshiba.co.jp (imx12.toshiba.co.jp [61.202.160.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E6A21F84FC for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 20:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arc11.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.90.127]) by imx12.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id q4L3KbCD013494 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:20:37 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by arc11.toshiba.co.jp id q4L3Kb5v002563 for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:20:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from ovp11.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.90.148] by arc11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id NAA02562; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:20:37 +0900 Received: from mx2.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id q4L3Kbfx025347 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:20:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from tsbpoa.po.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id q4L3KbP9022844; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:20:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from [133.196.20.74] by mail.po.toshiba.co.jp (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.05 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0M4C00FZ8RYCX230@mail.po.toshiba.co.jp> for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:20:37 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:20:33 +0900 From: Yoshihiro Ohba To: 6lowpan@ietf.org Message-id: <4FB9B481.30804@toshiba.co.jp> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 Subject: [6lowpan] Review of draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 03:20:40 -0000 I have read draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04. The draft is well written, simple and useful, and I support the draft to be an RFC. I have one comment on code byte representation in the draft. Please see below. The code byte representation such as "0kkkkkkk" is confusing. Which does it mean 1) or 2) below? 1) 00000000 (for k=0b0) or 01111111 (for k=0b1). 2) the least significant 7 bits of the code byte value has a decimal value of k, where the right-most bit is the least significant bit. If it means 2), then representation of code byte should be changed to be more accurate. Here is the suggested change for the code bytes definition in section 2: " The most significant bit: The leftmost bit in the code byte. c_i: The i-th significant bit of code byte (c_0 is the most significant bit) sum_{i=x}^{y}: sum with increasing variable i from x up to y by 1. * (wildcard bit): The bit can be 0 or 1. The code bytes are defined as follows: Code Byte Action Argument ---------------------------------------------------------------- 0******* Append k = sum_{i=1}^{7} c_i*2^(7-i) k bytes bytes of data to bytecode argument (k<96). data 1000**** Append sum_{i=4}^{7}{c_i*2^(7-i)} bytes of zeros. 10010000 STOP code 101***** Set up extended arguments for a backreference: sa += sum_{i=4}^{7} c_i*2^(10-i); na += c_3*2^3 11****** Backreference: n = na + sum_{i=2}^{4} c_i*2^(4-i) +2; s = sum_{i=5}^{7} c_i*2^(7-i) + sa + n; append n bytes from previously output bytes, starting s bytes to the left of the current output pointer; set sa=0, na=0. ----------------------------------------------------------------- " Best Regards, Yoshihiro Ohba From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 24 11:16:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5ED11E80A4 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 11:16:35 -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=[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 YLdBSF43mKr4 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75F511E8083 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 May 2012 11:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SXcaM-0004oa-UV; Thu, 24 May 2012 14:16:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: zach@sensinode.com X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 18:16:30 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/137#comment:1 Message-ID: <088.e05e34c25c7f96b4de5d6990a934325c@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <073.d454847f1a45883cc5c3de8bb5996aaf@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 137 In-Reply-To: <073.d454847f1a45883cc5c3de8bb5996aaf@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: zach@sensinode.com, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #137: Gen-art Comment on ND-18 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 18:16:35 -0000 #137: Gen-art Comment on ND-18 Changes (by zach@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Done in -19 -- ------------------------------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: samita.chakrabarti@… | Owner: zach@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: nd-small-fixes Component: nd | Version: 1.0 Severity: Waiting for Shepherd Writeup | Resolution: fixed Keywords: gen-art editorial | ------------------------------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 24 11:25:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFB021F8499 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 11:25:08 -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=[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 LaFgW88yuiei for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 11:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6E121F8495 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 May 2012 11:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SXciT-0008EF-Ue; Thu, 24 May 2012 14:24:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd@tools.ietf.org, zach@sensinode.com X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 18:24:53 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/140#comment:1 Message-ID: <088.3ca192a8f09dcb512f25071430019a84@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <073.4385432f16395fcb1da7792b1cb75717@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 140 In-Reply-To: <073.4385432f16395fcb1da7792b1cb75717@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd@tools.ietf.org, zach@sensinode.com, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120524182502.DF6E121F8495@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 11:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #140: Peter St. Andre's comments on ip-over-foo X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 18:25:09 -0000 #140: Peter St. Andre's comments on ip-over-foo Changes (by zach@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Done in -19 IP-over-foo Document: A document that covers operating IP over a particular link type, for example [RFC4919] "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)". -- ----------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Reporter: samita.chakrabarti@… | Owner: draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ----------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu May 24 12:05:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FA511E80C5 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 12:05:38 -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 wgjv2oD4uHLT for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 12:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA6211E80C1 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 May 2012 12:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SXdLr-0003eH-Ey; Thu, 24 May 2012 15:05:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: zach@sensinode.com X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:05:34 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/135#comment:4 Message-ID: <075.a56d21befcc2c794632c0794d919f622@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <060.94c8f73ac6be09255b6296e139e2867b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 135 In-Reply-To: <060.94c8f73ac6be09255b6296e139e2867b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: zach@sensinode.com, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #135: IESG Editorial Comments X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:05:38 -0000 #135: IESG Editorial Comments Comment (by zach@…): Fixed #1-5 and #7-8 -- -------------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: zach@… | Owner: zach@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: nd-small-fixes Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Fri May 25 09:06:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07E421F86AD for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:06:00 -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 hHLzMeIy-n9o for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBA921F8674 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SXx1V-0003AL-3W; Fri, 25 May 2012 12:05:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: zach@sensinode.com X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:53 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/141#comment:1 Message-ID: <088.0af551d83a907a10e541faa9bed33b63@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <073.7717d59f67ec96cb22f7ddfce1ca8ddd@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 141 In-Reply-To: <073.7717d59f67ec96cb22f7ddfce1ca8ddd@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: zach@sensinode.com, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #141: Donald Eastlake's DISCUSS comments on 6lowpan-nd X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:06:00 -0000 #141: Donald Eastlake's DISCUSS comments on 6lowpan-nd Changes (by zach@…): * owner: nordmark@… => zach@… * status: new => assigned Comment: Proposed solution: - Keep comptaibility with existing implementations while fixing the problem for new implementations. - Extend the version number field with another 16 bits. The current 16-bits are version-low and the following 16-bit are version-high. Explain what happens when you run out of version numbers. - Add a 16-bit lifetime field after the version fields in minutes. If you receive something with a lifetime of zero it should be assumed to be a default number (TBD) as this may come from an old implementation. - Add explanatory text on how 6LBRs should set these fields and how 6LRs should interpret the fields. -- ----------------------------------+----------------------- Reporter: samita.chakrabarti@… | Owner: zach@… Type: enhancement | Status: assigned Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ----------------------------------+----------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Fri May 25 09:07:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8D521F8736 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:07:16 -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=[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 WOpSD0PDrnMU for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947B821F86AD for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SXx2k-0003CO-QL; Fri, 25 May 2012 12:07:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: nordmark@cisco.com, zach@sensinode.com X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:07:10 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/141#comment:2 Message-ID: <088.3af0ca0b831433b8829349d8532c1d23@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <073.7717d59f67ec96cb22f7ddfce1ca8ddd@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 141 In-Reply-To: <073.7717d59f67ec96cb22f7ddfce1ca8ddd@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: nordmark@cisco.com, zach@sensinode.com, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #141: Donald Eastlake's DISCUSS comments on 6lowpan-nd X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:07:16 -0000 #141: Donald Eastlake's DISCUSS comments on 6lowpan-nd Changes (by zach@…): * owner: zach@… => nordmark@… * status: assigned => new -- ----------------------------------+------------------------- Reporter: samita.chakrabarti@… | Owner: nordmark@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ----------------------------------+------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Fri May 25 09:08:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9DC821F8753 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:08:29 -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 XmACz2wdDaKF for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B2521F874A for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SXx3w-0003GC-ED; Fri, 25 May 2012 12:08:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com, zach@sensinode.com X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:08:24 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/138#comment:1 Message-ID: <088.0b246a764626a427ab475c4e5633bb23@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <073.8e16da8a56dd6b53d15aa2e8e39aaecf@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 138 In-Reply-To: <073.8e16da8a56dd6b53d15aa2e8e39aaecf@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com, zach@sensinode.com, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #138: Adrian Farrel's DISCUSS comments and Suggestions X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:08:29 -0000 #138: Adrian Farrel's DISCUSS comments and Suggestions Changes (by zach@…): * owner: zach@… => samita.chakrabarti@… -- ----------------------------------+----------------------------------- Reporter: samita.chakrabarti@… | Owner: samita.chakrabarti@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: nd-discusses Component: nd | Version: 1.0 Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ----------------------------------+----------------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Fri May 25 09:08:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509F821F875B for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:08:54 -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=[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 ozxcffr5FPOG for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B3A21F8759 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SXx4L-0003Ga-U7; Fri, 25 May 2012 12:08:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: cabo@tzi.org, zach@sensinode.com X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:08:49 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/136#comment:5 Message-ID: <075.53b4a192d6427c7c0a13005f1d731719@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <060.3118482294de7d7aa192663aeb05650b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 136 In-Reply-To: <060.3118482294de7d7aa192663aeb05650b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: cabo@tzi.org, zach@sensinode.com, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #136: IANA Comments X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:08:54 -0000 #136: IANA Comments Changes (by zach@…): * owner: zach@… => cabo@… -- --------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: zach@… | Owner: cabo@… Type: task | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: nd-small-fixes Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | --------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Fri May 25 09:26:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE7821F873A for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:26:03 -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 yuykJ4h5sfCC for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D96C21F8738 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SXxKx-00083Q-V4; Fri, 25 May 2012 12:25:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com, zach@sensinode.com X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:25:59 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/138#comment:2 Message-ID: <088.6e84689c68ba2c4e9d675291ec1f49ae@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <073.8e16da8a56dd6b53d15aa2e8e39aaecf@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 138 In-Reply-To: <073.8e16da8a56dd6b53d15aa2e8e39aaecf@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com, zach@sensinode.com, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #138: Adrian Farrel's DISCUSS comments and Suggestions X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:26:03 -0000 #138: Adrian Farrel's DISCUSS comments and Suggestions Comment (by zach@…): Regarding Adrian's comments on too-many options and sub-options (especially for 6LRs), the proposed solution is: - For 6LRs make s/SHOULD/MUST, in practice remove options. Use a common style to make it clear that a routing algorithm can substitute some mechanisms with its own (and which options can be substituted). - Similar language in RFC4861 that if a router implements a routing protocol, this may override some mechanisms defined for 6LRs. - Need to define what subtitutable means, introduced in Section 1.5. -- ----------------------------------+----------------------------------- Reporter: samita.chakrabarti@… | Owner: samita.chakrabarti@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: nd-discusses Component: nd | Version: 1.0 Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ----------------------------------+----------------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Fri May 25 09:57:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B6B21F8715 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:57:40 -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=[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 z9cNChCfZys7 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F2821F870F for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SXxpT-0008G4-JH; Fri, 25 May 2012 12:57:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: cabo@tzi.org, zach@sensinode.com X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:57:30 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: /ticket/136#comment:6 Message-ID: <075.2d749457bb29dcd55e80f030e9cc95c3@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <060.3118482294de7d7aa192663aeb05650b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 136 In-Reply-To: <060.3118482294de7d7aa192663aeb05650b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: cabo@tzi.org, zach@sensinode.com, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #136: IANA Comments X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:57:41 -0000 #136: IANA Comments Changes (by cabo@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Fixed in [283]: Fix #136 -- --------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: zach@… | Owner: cabo@… Type: task | Status: closed Priority: minor | Milestone: nd-small-fixes Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | --------------------+----------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon May 28 19:16:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DC021F8731 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 May 2012 19:16:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_NAIL=2.3, 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 7T-OdkII5Rzq for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 May 2012 19:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747E821F872D for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 May 2012 19:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SZByk-0004wM-OY; Mon, 28 May 2012 22:16:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "6lowpan issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd@tools.ietf.org, samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com X-Trac-Project: 6lowpan Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 02:16:09 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/142 Message-ID: <073.83786121cd4cc06dbcd9434dafab8de5@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 142 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd@tools.ietf.org, samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, 6lowpan@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120529021628.747E821F872D@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+6lowpan@trac.tools.ietf.org Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Subject: [6lowpan] #142: Stephen Farrel's Discuss comments X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 02:16:29 -0000 #142: Stephen Farrel's Discuss comments ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- #1 1.4 - "it is assumed that 6LRs register with all the 6LBRs." is ambiguous - does it mean each 6LR registers with some 6LBR or s/each/all/ or s/some/all/ or both? Assuming that all 6LRs are registered with all 6LBRs would seem to be too difficult and unwise so I think this needs fixing. RESPONSE==> ‘each 6LR to register with all the configured 6LBR in the 6LowPAN’. This is the intended meaning. We will also flag this with 6lowpan wg. #2 1.4 - Why would probabilistic uniqueness of non-EUI-64-derived addresses not be sufficient in some networks? If it is, then the "must be either assigned or checked" seems wrong. RESPONSE===> We are consistent with RFC 4862 section 5.4. It is recommended that non-EUI-64 addresses should be checked for uniqueness if they are not assigned by a reliable entity. #3 3.2 - Does this mean that if I can pretend to be a router I can force (some) nodes to change their addresses? If so, why is that not mentioned as an attack in the security considerations? (If IP-address based node reputation ever evolved for nodes like these then this would be serious attack - misbehave as addr1, pretend to be a DHCP server and then force addr1 on some other innocent node.) RESPONSE====> Same security consideration as RFC 4862 applies. We will update the first line of security consideration section to refer to RFC 4862 to address this comment. Thus it will say: "The security considerations of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] and [RFC4862] apply" #4 3.3 - How long is a sleeping node expected to say awake when sending a registration message? Is that long enough to get an error saying its chosen address is in use already? If not, then what prevents that node constantly re-awakening and using the duplicate address (or many identical such nodes doing that all the time)? (Saying "A host retransmits...until..." later in that section isn't clear enough really - there's no 2119 language there at all so I don't know if that's a MUST or MAY.) RESPONSE===> We will make a change in the document to make the optional behaviors as default (MUST) in order to address Adrian Farrell's comment. The draft provides some default recommendations in section 9 and details behavior are described in section 5.5. Section 3.3 is an overview section - here we only wanted to give a high-level overview of the protocol. #5 8.1.4 - Is the last sentence here really optional, (everything in section 8 should be optional, right?) or is that behaviour meant to apply to all cases? If the latter, it really ought be in 4.2 shouldn't it? Also there are two 6CO's mentioned there, but its not clear to me at what point the 2nd is sent (T+5 presumably?) RESPONSE===> As per Adrian Farell's comments we are revisitng the optional behavior sections to make them mandatory by default to reduce confusion and interoperability issues in the deployment. If 6CO is used, it should be in the same prefix advertisemnt. ND-19 should address this comment. #6 What does "expects" mean in the security considerations? (Section 11, 2nd para.) That's not 2119 language. Are you saying this protocol MUST NOT be used if layer 2 security isn't sufficiently strong or is missing? If not, then what? RESPONSE===> Suggested new text for the 2nd paragraph in security section: This specification assumes that the link layer is sufficiently protected, for instance using MAC sublayer cryptography. Thus, its threat model is no different from that of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC 4861]. The trust model #1, in section 3 of SEND [RFC3756] applies here. However, any future 6LoWPAN security protocol that applies to Neighbor Discovery for 6LoWPAN protocol, is out of scope of this document. #7 How can "Using link-layer indication for NUD" be a SHOULD deploy but only a MAY implement? (Table 2, in section 13.) RESPONSE====> Indeed, there is no reference of 'link-layer indication' in the body of the document, but we listed in the table for a suggestion to the implementors. We can either take that text out completely from the table or update the table as : | 5.1 | Re-direct Message Acceptance | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | | | | | | | |Joining Solicited Node | N/A | N/A | | Other | Multicast | | | |Recommend- | Joining all-node Multicast | MUST | MUST | | ations | Using link-layer indication for | MAY | MAY | | | NUD | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- General - The logic as to why mesh-under and route-over are the most important topologies is not explained here and I don't see why its most valuable to tackle this problem in a topology-specific manner. It's also a shame that 1.3 needs to have all nodes implementing this to get any benefit and that each node must be part of only one network. (The latter is particularly unfortunate given that sleeping node wake times might cause such a condition over time.) However, this is maybe not actually a problem since the protocol doesn't seem to be really specific to those topologies - is that right? If so, then I'd suggest weakening the language to say that e.g. the authors or WG are more interested in those topologies, but that the protocol might work in other contexts too. RESPONSE====> 6lowpan working group mainly targets IEEE802.15.4 or similar lowpower networks and topologies. The mesh and route-over topologies came from that concept. We agree, that in the introduction section, we can change the text to say that the protocol might work in other contexts. In fact BTLE and BACNET are two other networks which are considering this protocol. The homogeneous nature of nodes are needed in this solution as this document does not address operations with existing nodes. A generic solution in ipv6 network is being addressed and developed in: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-energy-aware- nd/ Various places: - What's a non-transitive wireless link? RESPONSE=====> non-transitive link is defined in RFC 4861 Non-transitive reachability means packets from A reach B, and packets from B reach C, but packets from A don't reach C.) Many radio links exhibit these. Abstract - is a bit awkwardly written, some polish could usefully be applied. RESPONSE====> Will be fixed. Others also commented the same. 1.1 - I don't get the relevance of the "primarily two types" of lowpan topology on p5. Only the last sentence of that paragraph seems relevant or necessary. Similarly with section 1.2 which, other than introducing terminology seems unnecessary. RESPONSE===> 6lowpan wg is interested in these two types of topologies as these two are defined in IEEE 802.15.4. 1.3 - A number of the goals say "optimize" - is that meant to mean "improve" or "make the best"? In the latter, case, that would seem to require more work, e.g. to be able to compare approaches via metrics or something. Since I don't think that's really needed, I'd say s/optimize/improve/g would be more correct. (Similarly for s/minimize/reduce/) RESPONSE===> We will try to make this change in the document when applicable. The goal of optimization is improvement. -- ----------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: samita.chakrabarti@… | Owner: draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: nd-discusses Component: nd | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: nd-18 ----------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: 6lowpan From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Tue May 29 04:09:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA6421F87DE for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2012 04:09:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_NAIL=2.3, 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 TuQ3ogeiCzEg for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2012 04:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.scss.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F200721F87D6 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 May 2012 04:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4A3171472; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:09:29 +0100 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1338289768; bh=tKnpA69OcT2JTk SnDZLSptao7nkODR+7sGEwXjG+DTg=; b=0uZLarGizox6TRIqR+ISlR8Vnlt75W zytwTnQz8Rjm9kxEzWZjsBFsZk/lpLY+YlD7akAFVeKYDC4lACDH5o24coR8Z9AM geQu5FfKx2AHrEq3aztj6jttDlSarZwJgSyqN5QZAX8iz1fvnstyXZz6U4aufoKa ZUIIAmCt/zbRkYwyd5bQSFwo0K7rIBlOBWYtNOwUXc3IQpEDlRivpS9HeWYVV2B9 Uii5PIvzDSoNZUHoZ8zFL3AUwC9Svk/eMM42HC2CMnMIY85XmkWRez1S6UeC2wSD c8m+aXxDGKeT/OuR37XG5UPXaBXSY6v77QDPePV8akS+77KuwctvVLIg== X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id Pc9xZDqLEmUg; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:09:28 +0100 (IST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:746a:67db:b7ac:1c60] (unknown [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:746a:67db:b7ac:1c60]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95E2C171479; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:09:25 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <4FC4AE65.2010209@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:09:25 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 6lowpan@ietf.org References: <073.83786121cd4cc06dbcd9434dafab8de5@trac.tools.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <073.83786121cd4cc06dbcd9434dafab8de5@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:06:55 -0700 Cc: 6lowpan issue tracker , draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #142: Stephen Farrel's Discuss comments X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:09:32 -0000 Hi, Those changes look good or at least good enough to shoot out a new rev and I can clear down all or almost all of my discuss points. Thanks, S. On 05/29/2012 03:16 AM, 6lowpan issue tracker wrote: > #142: Stephen Farrel's Discuss comments > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > #1 1.4 - "it is assumed that 6LRs register with all the 6LBRs." is > ambiguous - does it mean each 6LR registers with some 6LBR or s/each/all/ > or s/some/all/ or both? Assuming that all 6LRs are registered with all > 6LBRs would seem to be too difficult and unwise so I think this needs > fixing. > > RESPONSE==> ‘each 6LR to register with all the configured 6LBR in the > 6LowPAN’. This is the intended meaning. We will also flag this with > 6lowpan wg. > > #2 1.4 - Why would probabilistic uniqueness of non-EUI-64-derived > addresses not be sufficient in some networks? If it is, then the "must be > either assigned or checked" seems wrong. > > RESPONSE===> We are consistent with RFC 4862 section 5.4. It is > recommended that non-EUI-64 addresses should be checked for uniqueness if > they are not assigned by a reliable entity. > > #3 3.2 - Does this mean that if I can pretend to be a router I can force > (some) nodes to change their addresses? If so, why is that not mentioned > as an attack in the security considerations? (If IP-address based node > reputation ever evolved for nodes like these then this would be serious > attack - misbehave as addr1, pretend to be a DHCP server and then force > addr1 on some other innocent node.) > > RESPONSE====> Same security consideration as RFC 4862 applies. We will > update the first line of security consideration section to refer to RFC > 4862 to address this comment. Thus it will say: > "The security considerations of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] and > [RFC4862] apply" > > #4 3.3 - How long is a sleeping node expected to say awake when sending a > registration message? Is that long enough to get an error saying its > chosen address is in use already? If not, then what prevents that node > constantly re-awakening and using the duplicate address (or many identical > such nodes doing that all the time)? > (Saying "A host retransmits...until..." later in that section isn't clear > enough really - there's no 2119 language there at all so I don't know if > that's a MUST or MAY.) > > RESPONSE===> We will make a change in the document to make the optional > behaviors as default (MUST) in order to address Adrian Farrell's comment. > > The draft provides some default recommendations in section 9 and details > behavior are described in section 5.5. Section 3.3 is an overview section > - here we only wanted to give a high-level overview of the protocol. > > > #5 8.1.4 - Is the last sentence here really optional, (everything in > section 8 should be optional, right?) or is that behaviour meant to apply > to all cases? If the latter, it really ought be in 4.2 shouldn't it? Also > there are two 6CO's mentioned there, but its not clear to me at what point > the 2nd is sent (T+5 presumably?) > > RESPONSE===> As per Adrian Farell's comments we are revisitng the optional > behavior sections to make them mandatory by default to reduce confusion > and interoperability issues in the deployment. If 6CO is used, it should > be in the same prefix advertisemnt. ND-19 should address this comment. > > #6 What does "expects" mean in the security considerations? > (Section 11, 2nd para.) That's not 2119 language. Are you saying this > protocol MUST NOT be used if layer 2 security isn't sufficiently strong or > is missing? If not, then what? > > RESPONSE===> > Suggested new text for the 2nd paragraph in security section: > > This specification assumes that the link layer is sufficiently > protected, for instance using MAC sublayer cryptography. Thus, its > threat model is no different from that of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC > 4861]. The trust model #1, in section 3 of SEND [RFC3756] applies here. > However, any future 6LoWPAN security protocol that applies to Neighbor > Discovery for 6LoWPAN protocol, is out of scope of this document. > > #7 How can "Using link-layer indication for NUD" be a SHOULD deploy but > only a MAY implement? (Table 2, in section 13.) > > RESPONSE====> > Indeed, there is no reference of 'link-layer indication' in the body of > the document, but we listed in the table for a suggestion to the > implementors. We can either take that text out completely from the table > or update the table as : > > | 5.1 | Re-direct Message Acceptance | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | > | | | | | > | |Joining Solicited Node | N/A | N/A | | > Other | Multicast | | | > |Recommend- | Joining all-node Multicast | MUST | MUST | > | ations | Using link-layer indication for | MAY | MAY | > | | NUD | | | > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > General - The logic as to why mesh-under and route-over are the most > important topologies is not explained here and I don't see why its most > valuable to tackle this problem in a topology-specific manner. It's also > a shame that 1.3 needs to have all nodes implementing this to get any > benefit and that each node must be part of only one network. (The latter > is particularly unfortunate given that sleeping node wake times might > cause such a condition over time.) However, this is maybe not actually a > problem since the protocol doesn't seem to be really specific to those > topologies - is that right? If so, then I'd suggest weakening the language > to say that e.g. the authors or WG are more interested in those > topologies, but that the protocol might work in other contexts too. > > RESPONSE====> 6lowpan working group mainly targets IEEE802.15.4 or similar > lowpower networks and topologies. The mesh and route-over topologies came > from that concept. > We agree, that in the introduction section, we can change the text to say > that the protocol might work in other contexts. In fact BTLE and BACNET > are two other networks which are considering this protocol. > The homogeneous nature of nodes are needed in this solution as this > document does not address operations with existing nodes. A generic > solution in ipv6 network is being addressed and developed in: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-energy-aware- > nd/ > > > Various places: - What's a non-transitive wireless link? > > RESPONSE=====> non-transitive link is defined in RFC 4861 > Non-transitive reachability means packets from A reach B, and > packets from B reach C, but packets from A don't > reach C.) Many radio links exhibit these. > > Abstract - is a bit awkwardly written, some polish could usefully be > applied. > > RESPONSE====> Will be fixed. Others also commented the same. > > 1.1 - I don't get the relevance of the "primarily two types" of lowpan > topology on p5. Only the last sentence of that paragraph seems relevant or > necessary. Similarly with section 1.2 which, other than introducing > terminology seems unnecessary. > RESPONSE===> 6lowpan wg is interested in these two types of topologies as > these two are defined in IEEE 802.15.4. > > > > 1.3 - A number of the goals say "optimize" - is that meant to mean > "improve" or "make the best"? In the latter, case, that would seem to > require more work, e.g. to be able to compare approaches via metrics or > something. Since I don't think that's really needed, I'd say > s/optimize/improve/g would be more correct. (Similarly for > s/minimize/reduce/) > > RESPONSE===> We will try to make this change in the document when > applicable. The goal of optimization is improvement. >