IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Roll] Unannounced change in draft-ietf-roll-mcast-trickle

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 11 April 2013 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 79E2E21F8D29 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 05:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.281
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.318, 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 BFy05oPqXQfZ for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 05:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6A821F8D11 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 05:23:28 -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 r3BCNRWH009874; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:23:27 +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 r3BCNQu6009862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:23:26 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: roll@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:23:25 +0100
Message-ID: <029801ce36af$5de1aa10$19a4fe30$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: Ac42rqn+i/tL/MorT5K0X3X7E9JVlw==
Cc: draft-ietf-roll-mcast-trickle@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] Unannounced change in draft-ietf-roll-mcast-trickle
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 <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:23:29 -0000

Hi,

It's been brought to my attention that between -02 and -03 the form of the IPv6
option number was changed. I've had a quick chat with the chairs, and I'm
jumping in because of the implications for IANA (see below).

The act bits remain the same (01) indicating that the IPv6 node MUST discard the
packet if it doesn't recognize the option type.
But the chg bit changed from 0 in -02 to 1 in -01 meaning that transit nodes can
now change the content of the option.

I have no comment on whether this is a good idea (the WG should decide about
that), but I haven't been able to find a discussion of this change on the list.
Perhaps it is buried in a ticket?

The problem caused is that the WG went through the hoop to ask for an early code
point allocation. part of that request is confirming that the content of the
IANA section is stable. The allocation was made against the -02 revision, so now
you have a code point in the registry that you say you do not want to use :-(

Let's sort out first things first. 
- Authors, please explain why the change was made.
- WG, please wait for the authors to explain, and then
  respond with your opinions.
- Chairs, please let me know what the consensus is.

Thanks,
Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email