From nobody Mon May 1 23:45:52 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F07128D64; Mon, 1 May 2017 23:45:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: 6lo@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149370754805.9910.7221461687360524870@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:45:48 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 06:45:48 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes of the IETF. Title : An Update to 6LoWPAN ND Authors : Pascal Thubert Erik Nordmark Samita Chakrabarti Filename : draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2017-05-01 Abstract: This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery, to clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique, simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, and provide enhancements to the registration capabilities, in particular for the registration to a Backbone Router for proxy ND operations. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue May 2 18:37:28 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD92129B0F; Tue, 2 May 2017 18:37:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rLgTRtx5Y2i2; Tue, 2 May 2017 18:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B49412EB17; Tue, 2 May 2017 18:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 26E64B813AC; Tue, 2 May 2017 18:33:40 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, 6lo@ietf.org Message-Id: <20170503013340.26E64B813AC@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] RFC 8105 on Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 01:37:20 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8105 Title: Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) Author: P. Mariager, J. Petersen, Ed., Z. Shelby, M. Van de Logt, D. Barthel Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: May 2017 Mailbox: pm@rtx.dk, jtp@rtx.dk, zach.shelby@arm.com, marco.vandelogt@bosch-sensortec.com, dominique.barthel@orange.com Pages: 22 Characters: 49537 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-09.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8105 DOI: 10.17487/RFC8105 Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) is a low-power air interface technology that is proposed by the DECT Forum and is defined and specified by ETSI. The DECT air interface technology has been used worldwide in communication devices for more than 20 years. It has primarily been used to carry voice for cordless telephony but has also been deployed for data-centric services. DECT ULE is a recent addition to the DECT interface primarily intended for low-bandwidth, low-power applications such as sensor devices, smart meters, home automation, etc. As the DECT ULE interface inherits many of the capabilities from DECT, it benefits from operation that is long-range and interference-free, worldwide- reserved frequency band, low silicon prices, and maturity. There is an added value in the ability to communicate with IPv6 over DECT ULE, such as for Internet of Things applications. This document describes how IPv6 is transported over DECT ULE using IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) techniques. This document is a product of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Wed May 3 00:00:35 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8681270FC; Wed, 3 May 2017 00:00:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LqzyPOjP2GtC; Wed, 3 May 2017 00:00:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C25A9128954; Tue, 2 May 2017 23:58:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3814; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493794693; x=1495004293; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=LGJeEqS48iSPBYVnxqUqNzSvcchxT4i2yLMFbRZWqrM=; b=JCG53dYLjPL3177gzPzIUDJuQceNVxlSce7xzkHRHVrDWbTK0XWVvEif 7FCUNxLIOGMwc4ehDwbgSGqtAsI+EcrUavlmgrLYBPNoEto0SXqjmh7t+ 66obdzJ8wkABspfq05zXcVY4CGzl8sNQTI96XcVfVJagAY5HSoCVvJl9x E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DNAADPfglZ/40NJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1VigQwHjXmRT5EQhF6CDyELhXgChFY/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsdC4U?= =?us-ascii?q?VAQEBAQMBATgUKwwEAgEIEQMBAQENEgUEBycKARQJCAIEDgUIDAcCBIl9DrI5i?= =?us-ascii?q?nQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYZfgV6DG4E8gwgFhX8FllaGfgGHGot?= =?us-ascii?q?tgguFN4oliHeLOQEfOIEKbxUahVCBSnaGW4EhgQ0BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,283,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="238455127" Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 May 2017 06:58:12 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v436wCnb030416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 May 2017 06:58:12 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 3 May 2017 01:58:11 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 3 May 2017 01:58:12 -0500 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule@ietf.org" CC: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: RFC 8105 on Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) Thread-Index: AQHSw635jjvPGnI1+0eYYxRagt8xH6HiLTXA Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 06:57:54 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 3 May 2017 06:57:39 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20170503013340.26E64B813AC@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20170503013340.26E64B813AC@rfc-editor.org> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.28] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [6lo] RFC 8105 on Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 07:00:33 -0000 Well done! Pascal -----Original Message----- From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of rf= c-editor@rfc-editor.org Sent: mercredi 3 mai 2017 03:34 To: ietf-announce@ietf.org; rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org; 6lo@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 8105 on Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Digital Enhanced Cor= dless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. =20 RFC 8105 Title: Transmission of IPv6 Packets over=20 Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT)=20 Ultra Low Energy (ULE)=20 Author: P. Mariager,=20 J. Petersen, Ed.,=20 Z. Shelby, M. Van de Logt,=20 D. Barthel Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: May 2017 Mailbox: pm@rtx.dk,=20 jtp@rtx.dk,=20 zach.shelby@arm.com, marco.vandelogt@bosch-sensortec.com,=20 dominique.barthel@orange.com Pages: 22 Characters: 49537 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-09.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8105 DOI: 10.17487/RFC8105 Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) is a low-power air interface technology that is proposed by the DECT = Forum and is defined and specified by ETSI. The DECT air interface technology has been used worldwide in communication = devices for more than 20 years. It has primarily been used to carry voice = for cordless telephony but has also been deployed for data-centric services= . DECT ULE is a recent addition to the DECT interface primarily intended for = low-bandwidth, low-power applications such as sensor devices, smart meters,= home automation, etc. As the DECT ULE interface inherits many of the capa= bilities from DECT, it benefits from operation that is long-range and inter= ference-free, worldwide- reserved frequency band, low silicon prices, and m= aturity. There is an added value in the ability to communicate with IPv6 o= ver DECT ULE, such as for Internet of Things applications. This document describes how IPv6 is transported over DECT ULE using IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) techniques. This document is a product of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constraine= d Nodes Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protoc= ol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for = improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet= Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standard= ization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is un= limited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For dow= nloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author = of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifical= ly noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distributi= on. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Wed May 3 14:49:51 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC43128BBB for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2017 14:49:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UrD52FoycRuT for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2017 14:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua0-x234.google.com (mail-ua0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EED8F129B5D for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 May 2017 14:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua0-x234.google.com with SMTP id e55so1687434uaa.2 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 May 2017 14:48:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=a+8VKL20K/SX4L2n3UY1waESeFfurc0R0BTewmlm+iQ=; b=JeNbqRSKO8ws/BX2gFXlLC9uo6Z/Ntb1F7cSZuJg6BPt2s1LjZ0O+eirwKHEfrAgau ZCwvWguBERjzGY4SDbQvFdkleTOl9n+z1u8aWehMR5Oaem/d6Zw+8oVuqZTz+2H4P0E3 41GnzgtQqetLiLt7/Fay8Ees/IvSN0XSxVUXxJExOaN6/PFw6sFSfVao7qVifv5T/qQ9 OkIciGgDH9u8mmWbI0F/Ut/NlLTYRgJzS3nAsGjTCZ3dNfSH4hgPn1ZuZJ/IM4UWYBwX IKyXhLGfu3gEd/b8CO1KglkLPTw9mfOJYOtiejjaoxNhvu+c/HoNorblEQ2PoG5bPPT9 mkvg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=a+8VKL20K/SX4L2n3UY1waESeFfurc0R0BTewmlm+iQ=; b=pZneHbW0LSrGXqcf+majQoCmu5bI0aXhF8v5UMk+/DW7C5+OGAQ9bljULOj6kor/lB m+L6xoaEpy27ihpF8I0+DOB+ubr3RCwn00OOdKqJtY9PwsmqJLgO6ZByQNp+R8tvvDLA xYA6lYQ8S7TMM9/Qb6d+WI913oYLJjPRfSHqsMY+J/5H+mjt2DEQMJVujRlDI1If3Dnj zBZFiAbA99mXacRNhv1E8zXl6V2el4klPZeYNY3SSC1LPosDwdgGLWmsJOP54nzkazh6 2GIPT8S/bLyZ187a9A++IHWhki9sT2pl6eSt3qwNk7sK/dxmrw/9pZVzlIraxwZ1CkoM qF6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6wd82Ya8V00IuRXqDurdEiYWmCSMfWjf6JAkT8xf/VglhRwYu+ NzQ/6+bmhvgSzTIUKNAYrKECwLOsG7NK X-Received: by 10.176.4.108 with SMTP id 99mr7225965uav.47.1493848099825; Wed, 03 May 2017 14:48:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.167.77 with HTTP; Wed, 3 May 2017 14:48:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <149370754805.9910.7221461687360524870@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <149370754805.9910.7221461687360524870@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Samita Chakrabarti Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 14:48:19 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" , Erik Nordmark , Gabriel Montenegro , lo <6lo@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114ab0a256cb62054ea59d73 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [6lo] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 21:49:50 -0000 --001a114ab0a256cb62054ea59d73 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Pascal: Thanks a lot for leading the RFC 6775 update work which has been necessary as the time goes by and deployment/implementations bring new requirements or change the specifications. Your lead and editorship of this work is really appreciated. I have gone through version 04 of the draft. Wearing both hats of co-chair and co-author, here are my review comments for the draft. First part of comment is on more administrative level and should not affect the progress of this draft and the second part of the comment is editorial and missing components which can be addressed before we forward to the next step. Best regards, -Samita Draft version : draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04 Comments from IETF98: 1) Is this draft targeting a generic update to RFC 6775 or is it a special usecase? Goal of rfc6775-bis should be to 'update RFC 6775' to address the following: Generic extension: * Support the indication of mobility vs retry (T-bit) * Ease up requirement of registration for link-local addresses * Introducting Enhanced ARO * Permitting regitration of target address * Clarification of support of privacy and temporary addresses == Conclusion: This draft is going to update RFC 6775. Question for Gabe and me to take up to Suresh and WG: Whether we need a master draft (to replace RFC 6775) which will point to multiple drafts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Editorial comments: [ Mostly generalizing the enhancement for 6lowpan; in the process it is useful to RPL and BBR etc. as special case examples] Abstract: Current: This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery, to clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique, simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, and provide enhancements to the registration capabilities, in particular for the registration to a Backbone Router for proxy ND operations. Suggested: This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery, to clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique, simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, and provide enhancements to the registration capabilities for different network configuration as well as mobility detection within a Low Power Network. Introduction: 2nd paragraph onwards... CURRENT: The scope of this draft is an IPv6 LLN, which can be a simple star or a more complex mesh topology. The LLN may be anchored at an IPv6 Backbone Router (6BBR) [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]. The 6BBRs interconnect the LLNs over a Backbone Link and emulate that the LLN nodes are present on the Backbone using proxy-ND operations. This specification modifies and extends the behavior and protocol elements of RFC 6775 [RFC6775] to enable additional capabilities, in particular the registration to a 6BBR for proxy ND operations. Suggested: The scope of this draft is an IPv6 Low Power Networks including star and mesh topologies. This specification modifies and extends the behavior and protocol elements of RFC 6775 [RFC6775] to enable additional capabilities such as: * Support the indication of mobility vs retry (T-bit) * Ease up requirement of registration for link-local addresses * Introducing Enhancement to Address Registration Option (ARO) * Permitting regitration of target address * Clarification of support of privacy and temporary addresses The following sections will discuss applicability of 6LoWPAN ND registration, new extensions and updates to RFC 6775. Finally, we will discuss how the extensions of registration framework can be useful for a use case scenario. Section 2: The naming of this section seems out-of-sequence right after the introduction. Let us change the title to fit it in this place. a) s/Considerations On Registration Rejection/Applicability of Address Registration options/ b) CURRENT( 1st paragraph): The purpose of the Address Registration Option (ARO) RFC 6775 [RFC6775] and of the Extended ARO (EARO) that is introduced in this document is to facilitate duplicate address detection (DAD) for hosts and pre-populate Neighbor Cache Entries (NCE) [RFC4861] in the routers to reduce the need for sending multicast neighbor solicitations and also to be able to support IPv6 Backbone Routers. SUGGESTED (1st paragraph): The purpose of the Address Registration Option (ARO) RFC 6775 [RFC6775] is to facilitate duplicate address detection (DAD) for hosts and pre-populate Neighbor Cache Entries (NCE) [RFC4861] in the routers in order to reduce the need for sending multicast neighbor solicitations which is harmful for low-power constrained networks. Section 3: Termnology: a) Please copy the terminology from RFC 6775 b) Remove 6tisch reference from terminology section [ This document should work with any 6lo L2 including 6tisch] c) BBR and Backbone network terminologies are OK d) Add proxy ND defininition Section 4: 'Extending RFC 7400' seems out-of-context here. Q1 : Should extension of RFC 7400 belong in this document? Q2: If Q1 is yes, then move this section after section 7. POssibly provide a diagram to show the format change Section 5: a) Clarify T-bit usage a bit on detection of mobility. This is going to be very useful feature in general for other link-layers too. Please describe it without giving a specific scenario. Mobility detection is missing in RFC 6775. Section 5.2: a) Please remove all reference of RPL in this section. One does not need to understand RPL mechanism or deploy RPL mechanism in order to use T-bit in 6LOWPAN-ND. Please describe usage of T-bit in context of 6lo networks in general. I understand that we want to introduce it in RFC 6775 in order to detect mobility of the 6LN as opposed to retrying. Section 5.5 : s/Link-Local Address Registration/Link-Local Address Registration Change/ a) Please shrink the texts in this section and provide a gist of change in either first or 2nd paragraph. Please try to reduce the texts into 4-5 paragraphs. Section 5.6: Remove reference for RPL networks (RFC 6550) please. This draft does not/should not depend on one particular routing protocol or configuration Section 7: Backward Compatibility: a) Please move up the 7.2 -7.4 ( all legacy nodes behavior) in the begining of the section. b) Current 7.1 section should follow after the legacy behavior c) Please add some text about backward compatibility of legacy nodes (6LN,6LR and 6LBR in any combination) right below section 7. Q: How does EARO modification, target address registration and link-local registration change ensure that they are transparent to a legacy 6LBR or legacy 6LR or legacy 6LN ? d) It is best to organize section 7 with two main sub-headings and then insert the appropriate sub sub-headings underneath. The suggested two sub headings could be: 7.1 Legacy nodes behavior due to changes in this draft 7.2 Backward compatibility with legacy devices ** Change in 6CIO format Please Add RFC 7400 related changes section here. I'd actually prefer a meaningful heading on RFC 7400 changes rather than " Extending RFC7400" ** Privacy Please add a section on 'Privacy Considerations' for 6LoWPAN address configuration. We can take a look at 6loBAC document or RFC 7668 and RFC 8105 and Privacy consideration RFC 8065 to form a text to provide guidance on privacy compliant and temporary address formation pros and cons here. We should use a short parapgraph and point to the relevnt sections of relevant documents here. Section 8: Security Connsiderations: "As indicated in section Section 2, this protocol does not aim at limiting the number of IPv6 addresses that a device can form, either. A host should be able to register any address that is topologically correct in the subnet(s) advertised by the 6LR/6LBR." ==> Should this document add a one line that the implmentation may consider limiting registration requests by using different techniques. On the other hand, the registration mechanism may be used by a rogue node to attack the 6LR or the 6LBR with a Denial-of-Service attack against the registry. It may also happen that the registry of a 6LR or a 6LBR is saturated and cannot take any more registration, which effectively denies the requesting a node the capability to use a new address. In order to alleviate those concerns, Section 5.6 provides a number of recommendations that ensure that a stale registration is removed as soon as possible from the 6LR and 6LBR. ===> Does the recommendation in 5.6 alleviate the DOS attack in 6LR and 6LBR? The above paragraph is scary. If 5.6 recommendations are useful against DOS attack, we must have stronger statement in security. Let us revisit the security section and see if we can make it less vulnerable. *** Add a section " Example scenario of EARO": Here, a section can be added to point to the BBR scenario and proxy ND operation. The text should be only a flavor to provide ideas [ < 10 lines or so ] On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Networks of > Resource-constrained Nodes of the IETF. > > Title : An Update to 6LoWPAN ND > Authors : Pascal Thubert > Erik Nordmark > Samita Chakrabarti > Filename : draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04.txt > Pages : 29 > Date : 2017-05-01 > > Abstract: > This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery, to > clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique, > simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, and provide > enhancements to the registration capabilities, in particular for the > registration to a Backbone Router for proxy ND operations. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > --001a114ab0a256cb62054ea59d73 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Pascal:

Thanks a lot for leading the= RFC 6775 update work which has been necessary as the time goes by and depl= oyment/implementations bring new requirements or change the specifications.= Your lead and editorship of this work is really appreciated.
I have gone through version 04 of the draft. Wearing both hats = of co-chair and co-author, here are my review comments for the draft. First= part of comment is on more administrative level and should not affect the = progress of this draft and the second part of the comment is editorial and = missing components which can be addressed before we forward to the next ste= p.

Best regards,
-Samita

<= /div>
Draft version : draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04
<= br>

Comments from IETF98:

1) Is this draft targeting a generic update to RFC 6775 or is it a special= usecase?


Goal of rfc6775-bis shoul= d be to 'update RFC 6775' =C2=A0to address the following:

Generic extension:
* Support the indication of mo= bility vs retry (T-bit)

* Ease up requirement of r= egistration for link-local addresses

* Introductin= g Enhanced ARO

* Permitting regitration of target = address

* Clarification of support of privacy and = temporary addresses
=3D=3D

Conclusion: = =C2=A0This draft is going to update RFC 6775. Question for Gabe and me to t= ake up to Suresh
and WG:
Whether we need a master draft= (to replace RFC 6775) which will point to multiple drafts.

<= /div>
-----------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------

Editorial comments: =C2= =A0[ Mostly generalizing the enhancement for 6lowpan; in the process
<= div>it is useful to RPL and BBR etc. as special case examples]=C2=A0
<= div>
Abstract:

Current:
= =C2=A0 This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery, to=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0clarify the role of the protocol as a registration = technique,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0simplify the registration operation in 6L= oWPAN routers, and provide
=C2=A0 =C2=A0enhancements to the regis= tration capabilities, in particular for the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0registra= tion to a Backbone Router for proxy ND operations.

Suggested:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6L= oWPAN Neighbor Discovery, to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0clarify the role of the= protocol as a registration technique,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0simplify the = registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, and provide
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0enhancements to the registration capabilities for different network
=C2=A0 =C2=A0configuration as well as mobility detection within a Low= Power Network.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0Introd= uction:

2nd paragraph onwards...

CURRENT:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0The scope of this draft is an IPv6 = LLN, which can be a simple star or
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a more complex me= sh topology.=C2=A0 The LLN may be anchored at an IPv6
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0Backbone Router (6BBR) [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router].=C2=A0 The 6BBRs
=C2=A0 =C2=A0interconnect the LLNs over a Backbone Link and emulat= e that the LLN
=C2=A0 =C2=A0nodes are present on the Backbone usi= ng proxy-ND operations.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0This specific= ation modifies and extends the behavior and protocol
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0elements of RFC 6775 [RFC6775] to enable additional capabilities, in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0particular the registration to a 6BBR for proxy ND oper= ations.

Suggested:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0The scop= e of this draft is an IPv6 Low Power Networks including
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0star and mesh topologies.=C2=A0 This specification modifies and exten= ds=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the behavior and protocol elements of RFC 6= 775 [RFC6775] to enable
=C2=A0 =C2=A0additional capabilities such= as:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Support the indication of mobi= lity vs retry (T-bit)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Ease up requi= rement of registration for link-local addresses

= =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Introducing Enhancement to =C2=A0Address Registration Option= (ARO)=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Permitting regitration= of target address

=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Clarification of= support of privacy and temporary addresses

=C2=A0= =C2=A0The following sections will discuss applicability of 6LoWPAN ND regi= stration,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0new extensions and updates to RFC 6775. Fi= nally, we will discuss how the=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0extensions of r= egistration framework can be useful for a use case scenario.

=


Section 2:

The naming of this section seems out-of-sequence right after the introduc= tion. Let us
change the title to fit it in this place.
= =C2=A0a) s/Considerations On Registration Rejection/Applicability of Addres= s Registration options/

=C2=A0b)=C2=A0
C= URRENT( 1st paragraph):
=C2=A0 =C2=A0The purpose of the Address R= egistration Option (ARO) RFC 6775
=C2=A0 =C2=A0[RFC6775] and of t= he Extended ARO (EARO) that is introduced in this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0do= cument is to facilitate duplicate address detection (DAD) for hosts
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and pre-populate Neighbor Cache Entries (NCE) [RFC4861] in = the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0routers to reduce the need for sending multicast= neighbor
=C2=A0 =C2=A0solicitations and also to be able to suppo= rt IPv6 Backbone Routers.

SUGGESTED (1st paragraph= ):
=C2=A0 =C2=A0
=C2=A0 The purpose of the Address Regi= stration Option (ARO) RFC 6775
=C2=A0 =C2=A0[RFC6775] is to facil= itate duplicate address detection (DAD) for hosts
=C2=A0 =C2=A0an= d pre-populate Neighbor Cache Entries (NCE) [RFC4861] in the
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0routers =C2=A0in order to reduce the need for sending multicast n= eighbor
=C2=A0 =C2=A0solicitations which is harmful for low-power= constrained networks.


Section 3:
Termnology:
=C2=A0a) Please copy the terminology from RF= C 6775
=C2=A0b) Remove 6tisch reference from terminology section = [ This document should work with
=C2=A0any 6lo L2 including 6tisc= h]
=C2=A0c) BBR and Backbone network terminologies are OK
=C2=A0d) Add proxy ND defininition


Section 4:

'Extending RFC 7400' seems o= ut-of-context here.

Q1 : Should extension of RFC 7= 400 belong in this document?
Q2: =C2=A0If Q1 is yes, then move th= is section after section 7. POssibly provide a diagram to
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0show the format change


Section 5:=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a) Clarify T-bit usage a bit on de= tection of mobility. This is going to be very useful
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 feature in general for other link-layers too. Please describe it= without giving a=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 specific scenario.= =C2=A0 Mobility detection is missing in RFC 6775.

= =C2=A0 =C2=A0
Section 5.2:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 a) Please remo= ve all reference of RPL in this section. One does not need to understand RP= L
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mechanism or deploy RPL mechanism in= order to use T-bit in 6LOWPAN-ND.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Ple= ase describe usage of T-bit in context of 6lo networks in general. I unders= tand that=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0we want to introduce i= t in RFC 6775 in order to detect mobility of the 6LN as opposed to=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0retrying.

Secti= on 5.5 : s/Link-Local Address Registration/Link-Local Address Registration = Change/
=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a) Plea= se shrink the texts in this section and provide a gist of change in either<= /div>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0first or 2nd paragraph. Please = try to reduce the texts into 4-5 paragraphs.=C2=A0

Section 5.6:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Remove reference for RP= L networks (RFC 6550) please. This draft does not/should not
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 depend on one particular routing protocol or confi= guration
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0

<= div>Section 7:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Backward Compatibility:=

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a) Please move up the = 7.2 -7.4 ( all legacy nodes behavior) =C2=A0in the begining of the section.=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0b) Current 7.1 section should follow = after the legacy behavior
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0c) Please ad= d some text about backward compatibility of legacy nodes (6LN,6LR and 6LBR = in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 any combination) right belo= w section 7.=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Q: How does= EARO modification, target address registration and link-local registration= change
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ensure t= hat they are transparent to a legacy 6LBR or legacy 6LR or legacy 6LN ?
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0d) It is best to organize section 7 with = two main sub-headings and then insert the appropriate=C2=A0
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0sub sub-headings underneath. The sugg= ested two sub headings could be:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 7.1 =C2=A0Legacy nodes behavior due to chan= ges in this draft
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 7.2 =C2=A0Backward compatibility with legacy devices

=C2=A0 =C2=A0
** =C2=A0Change in 6CIO format=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Please Add RFC 7400 related changes section here. = I'd actually prefer a meaningful heading on RFC 7400
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 changes rather than " Extending RFC7400"

** Privacy
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Please add a section on 'Priv= acy Considerations' for 6LoWPAN address configuration. We can take a lo= ok
=C2=A0 =C2=A0at 6loBAC document or RFC 7668 and RFC 8105 and P= rivacy consideration RFC 8065 to form a text
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to prov= ide guidance on privacy compliant and temporary address formation pros and = cons here.=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0We should use a short parapgraph an= d point to the relevnt sections of relevant documents here.
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0


Section 8: Security Conn= siderations:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0"As indicated in se= ction Section 2, this protocol does not aim at
=C2=A0 =C2=A0limit= ing the number of IPv6 addresses that a device can form, either.
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0A host should be able to register any address that is topologi= cally
=C2=A0 =C2=A0correct in the subnet(s) advertised by the 6LR= /6LBR."

=3D=3D> Should this document add a= one line that the implmentation may consider
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 limit= ing registration requests by using different techniques.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0On the other hand, the registration mechanism may be us= ed by a rogue
=C2=A0 =C2=A0node to attack the 6LR or the 6LBR wit= h a Denial-of-Service attack
=C2=A0 =C2=A0against the registry.= =C2=A0 It may also happen that the registry of a 6LR
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0or a 6LBR is saturated and cannot take any more registration, which
=C2=A0 =C2=A0effectively denies the requesting a node the capability = to use a new
=C2=A0 =C2=A0address.=C2=A0 In order to alleviate th= ose concerns, Section 5.6 provides
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a number of recom= mendations that ensure that a stale registration is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0= removed as soon as possible from the 6LR and 6LBR.

=3D=3D=3D> Does the recommendation in 5.6 alleviate the DOS attack in 6= LR and 6LBR?
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The above paragraph is scary. If= 5.6 recommendations are useful against
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0DOS a= ttack, we must have stronger statement in security.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Let us revisit the security section an= d see if we can make it less vulnerable.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0

*** Add a section " Example scenario of EARO&quo= t;:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Here, a section can be added to point to= the BBR scenario and proxy ND operation.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0The text should be only a flavor to provide ideas [ < 10 lines or = so ]


On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, <= ;internet-dra= fts@ietf.org> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained= Nodes of the IETF.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= An Update to 6LoWPAN ND
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authors=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Pasc= al Thubert
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Erik Nordmark
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Samita Chakrabarti
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Filename=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : draft-iet= f-6lo-rfc6775-update-04.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= 29
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 := 2017-05-01

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discove= ry, to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique,<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, and pr= ovide
=C2=A0 =C2=A0enhancements to the registration capabilities, in particular f= or the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0registration to a Backbone Router for proxy ND operations.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc= /draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-i= etf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/<= wbr>doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04


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

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

--001a114ab0a256cb62054ea59d73-- From nobody Wed May 3 15:02:31 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48037129426 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Nwemkyb1AuB for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14C721243F3 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:00:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id v20so1612527vke.2 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 May 2017 15:00:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FvYmGtBmVzV1+iPg4O0l1SiPzHKDx86KLUCG0b4VMdQ=; b=sB9pJM3KnNPvYjYNhkiu1vMFMYYPD1JQ0DujYRlUU6BVlAYQsCvo5RzfxRvEWDvqZe kkTeQ8pBD78FgRiZr2/CgWQ67LcBEQ9y418gxqYKE5dja5WRFRPIkI+S1tIzjk1w/ob5 Do2Z29/ZWvfmDeUcaPr4c3ZSFiTWx7c3lbKOGmKWKxzQHvtW1XOq5O1iH6LP0Li8kzUD EV+QnM9DCKwJGQX1UHX9quqIJWScA7ass5Ija7Tc0eIr9hkZaR+QCZsjJ869P04wDjLl SVzWgAoTUlFb2xv517n7O9/ZH1TJWtNXOVABlHEr9sHZVP1BeSMnB20YCKZ9um+wFmOH XxQA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FvYmGtBmVzV1+iPg4O0l1SiPzHKDx86KLUCG0b4VMdQ=; b=hUfuwlTdua01TE8z9EUuPfOV2r4CE/CSCw5uz5TUHGwxCLUf2EgVOJ1HB1IPGMvBfl 5T7TJgFHsJd6UYTD1vaMZfFdp9MD3+5hGoduRzmDT9iSJEl0myYCRw7oA5ORKjVEMSER w4Oh1L1v6Z7uWt1HJrjxWz9KDset/ku3mRQ3EIb/0lKfJuTCbhtsmRlNzBEOmyGj+KgF YvY9+j7/7IoAN9YaMaKyg0mgaa9UJCLCLiMujKR13oYDsS6FIiFda+LNz8wL65MzmHvZ rEf/OE3jIhirLGzLPifDNfWvYKT2BRArwBbMp847aA+dtwMhex1dWevfAwPOmXP6Y/Pb f1WA== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4uN+stYKgHkDusZviYRZkf8D+hIb4TSkBwtHbBZdAUMNMDgvBY zVXPCApgzXmrHtAYMiJV+GO9fiFNyw== X-Received: by 10.31.108.9 with SMTP id h9mr4566610vkc.27.1493848836967; Wed, 03 May 2017 15:00:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.167.77 with HTTP; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:00:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Samita Chakrabarti Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 15:00:36 -0700 Message-ID: To: lo <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11478d2e46922f054ea5c98d Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] Call for comments on requirements: draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 22:02:30 -0000 --001a11478d2e46922f054ea5c98d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello 6lo Colleagues: Please read the 6lo-rfc6775-update draft. The initial work started by Pascal by documenting requirements updates that he experienced during the LLN work on 6lowpan and 6tisch. The draft will move to LC soon. If there are some more requirements or valid concerns on backward compatibility with RFC 6775, please review the document carefully after the next revision and post your comments. Thanks, -Samita On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Networks of > Resource-constrained Nodes of the IETF. > > Title : An Update to 6LoWPAN ND > Authors : Pascal Thubert > Erik Nordmark > Samita Chakrabarti > Filename : draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04.txt > Pages : 29 > Date : 2017-05-01 > > Abstract: > This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery, to > clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique, > simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, and provide > enhancements to the registration capabilities, in particular for the > registration to a Backbone Router for proxy ND operations. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > --001a11478d2e46922f054ea5c98d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello =C2=A06lo Colleagues:

Please read= the 6lo-rfc6775-update draft.

The initial work st= arted by Pascal by documenting requirements updates that he=C2=A0
experienced during the LLN work on 6lowpan and 6tisch.

The draft will move to LC soon. If there are some more
requ= irements or valid concerns on backward compatibility with RFC 6775, please = review the document carefully after the next revision and post your comment= s.

Thanks,
-Samita

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:4= 5 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained= Nodes of the IETF.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= An Update to 6LoWPAN ND
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authors=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Pasc= al Thubert
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Erik Nordmark
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Samita Chakrabarti
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Filename=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : draft-iet= f-6lo-rfc6775-update-04.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= 29
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 := 2017-05-01

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discove= ry, to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique,<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, and pr= ovide
=C2=A0 =C2=A0enhancements to the registration capabilities, in particular f= or the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0registration to a Backbone Router for proxy ND operations.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc= /draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-i= etf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/<= wbr>doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-04


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

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

--001a11478d2e46922f054ea5c98d-- From nobody Fri May 5 20:44:28 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8129312947B; Fri, 5 May 2017 20:44:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TCEuJUgfDSAt; Fri, 5 May 2017 20:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C3EE1294E2; Fri, 5 May 2017 20:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9E6C6B80EBA; Fri, 5 May 2017 20:44:08 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, 6lo@ietf.org Message-Id: <20170506034408.9E6C6B80EBA@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 20:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] RFC 8163 on Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) Networks X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 03:44:26 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8163 Title: Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) Networks Author: K. Lynn, Ed., J. Martocci, C. Neilson, S. Donaldson Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: May 2017 Mailbox: kerlyn@ieee.org, jpmartocci@sbcglobal.net, cneilson@deltacontrols.com, stuart.donaldson@honeywell.com Pages: 27 Characters: 55845 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-08.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8163 DOI: 10.17487/RFC8163 Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) is a medium access control method for the RS-485 physical layer and is used primarily in building automation networks. This specification defines the frame format for transmission of IPv6 packets and the method of forming link-local and statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on MS/TP networks. This document is a product of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Fri May 5 22:57:06 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787C712426E for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 22:57:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BXmfnIBE6WHA for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 22:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2339120725 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 May 2017 22:57:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::b]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v465uu4I024886 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 May 2017 07:56:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.124] (p5DC7F3A7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.243.167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3wKdLw5S2rzDHq4; Sat, 6 May 2017 07:56:56 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <20170506034408.9E6C6B80EBA@rfc-editor.org> Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 07:56:55 +0200 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 515743015.675524-ccc90bea55f5ac494ed431c7b02dffbf Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20170506034408.9E6C6B80EBA@rfc-editor.org> To: lo <6lo@ietf.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [6lo] RFC 8163 on Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) Networks X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 05:57:04 -0000 Congratulations! It seems the first wave of 6lo adaptation layers is now complete: RFC 7428 (was draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz)=20 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks RFC 7668 (was draft-ietf-6lo-btle)=20 IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy RFC 8105 (was draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule)=20 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Digital Enhanced Cordless = Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) RFC 8163 (was draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac)=20 Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) Networks On to finishing blemesh and nfc! Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > On May 6, 2017, at 05:44, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >=20 > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >=20 >=20 > RFC 8163 >=20 > Title: Transmission of IPv6 over = Master-Slave/Token-Passing=20 > (MS/TP) Networks=20 > Author: K. Lynn, Ed., > J. Martocci,=20 > C. Neilson, > S. Donaldson > Status: Standards Track > Stream: IETF > Date: May 2017 > Mailbox: kerlyn@ieee.org,=20 > jpmartocci@sbcglobal.net,=20 > cneilson@deltacontrols.com, =20 > stuart.donaldson@honeywell.com > Pages: 27 > Characters: 55845 > Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None >=20 > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-08.txt >=20 > URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8163 >=20 > DOI: 10.17487/RFC8163 >=20 > Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) is a medium access control method > for the RS-485 physical layer and is used primarily in building > automation networks. This specification defines the frame format for > transmission of IPv6 packets and the method of forming link-local and > statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on MS/TP networks. >=20 > This document is a product of the IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > This is now a Proposed Standard. >=20 > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track > protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and = suggestions > for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official > Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for = the=20 > standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of = this=20 > memo is unlimited. >=20 > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist >=20 > For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk >=20 > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. = Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution. >=20 >=20 > The RFC Editor Team > Association Management Solutions, LLC >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Sat May 6 05:13:55 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB55128768 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 May 2017 05:13:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CO87wJMXSyJ2 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 May 2017 05:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCB781201FA for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 May 2017 05:13:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3617; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1494072831; x=1495282431; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/tROB3Kh46ZtBI79TJiVZ2oWsVADcj1m0HE8MBP9+KI=; b=bx2UJDne6mvgQ1KYVc6z9uy5yCzKhFTy8OdWCJCAhdV9suH+oAylxajS YtvpDpE9ynKtPyfXIcOkdzPDbOF2v+55Lw/eCB2LzG8LhlWsxsBG1Q3Kk bZUUklpNi6nPn63e/dmr/OiVWQoXupum6frO91CaXtcW+HARpfVFPe1lQ s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ChAQBevQ1Z/5tdJa1dGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBg1VigQyOAJE1IZVygg8hC4V4AoRJPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQFMIAIJBQsCAQgOBgQMIicKASUCBA4FFAcCBIlnAw0IDrE2imQBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYZfgV0BKwuCZYE8gRiBcB+DOIIxBZBghgaHEwGHG4t?= =?us-ascii?q?8ggSFPIoslD0BHziBCnAVHCoSAYRtKYFKdoZSgi4BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,298,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="244989035" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 May 2017 12:13:50 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v46CDoJH032357 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 6 May 2017 12:13:50 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sat, 6 May 2017 07:13:49 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sat, 6 May 2017 07:13:49 -0500 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Carsten Bormann CC: lo <6lo@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: [6lo] RFC 8163 on Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) Networks Thread-Index: AQHSxhsuEeN9yeBQ2E+O8Z52h3i2z6HnIryAgAAVfWE= Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 12:13:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20170506034408.9E6C6B80EBA@rfc-editor.org>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [6lo] RFC 8163 on Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) Networks X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 12:13:54 -0000 Champagne! Regards, Pascal > Le 6 mai 2017 =E0 07:57, Carsten Bormann a =E9crit : >=20 > Congratulations! >=20 > It seems the first wave of 6lo adaptation layers is now complete: >=20 > RFC 7428 (was draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz)=20 > Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks >=20 > RFC 7668 (was draft-ietf-6lo-btle)=20 > IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy >=20 > RFC 8105 (was draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule)=20 > Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunica= tions (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) >=20 > RFC 8163 (was draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac)=20 > Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) Networks >=20 > On to finishing blemesh and nfc! >=20 > Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten >=20 >=20 >> On May 6, 2017, at 05:44, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>=20 >> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >>=20 >>=20 >> RFC 8163 >>=20 >> Title: Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-Passing=20 >> (MS/TP) Networks=20 >> Author: K. Lynn, Ed., >> J. Martocci,=20 >> C. Neilson, >> S. Donaldson >> Status: Standards Track >> Stream: IETF >> Date: May 2017 >> Mailbox: kerlyn@ieee.org,=20 >> jpmartocci@sbcglobal.net,=20 >> cneilson@deltacontrols.com, =20 >> stuart.donaldson@honeywell.com >> Pages: 27 >> Characters: 55845 >> Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None >>=20 >> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-08.txt >>=20 >> URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8163 >>=20 >> DOI: 10.17487/RFC8163 >>=20 >> Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/TP) is a medium access control method >> for the RS-485 physical layer and is used primarily in building >> automation networks. This specification defines the frame format for >> transmission of IPv6 packets and the method of forming link-local and >> statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on MS/TP networks. >>=20 >> This document is a product of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constra= ined Nodes Working Group of the IETF. >>=20 >> This is now a Proposed Standard. >>=20 >> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track >> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggest= ions >> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official >> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for t= he=20 >> standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this= =20 >> memo is unlimited. >>=20 >> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist >>=20 >> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search >> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk >>=20 >> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless >> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >> unlimited distribution. >>=20 >>=20 >> The RFC Editor Team >> Association Management Solutions, LLC >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo From nobody Fri May 12 02:16:11 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA846129B64; Fri, 12 May 2017 02:16:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: 6lo@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149458056889.16728.10577872636905217998@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 02:16:08 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-05.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:16:09 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes of the IETF. Title : An Update to 6LoWPAN ND Authors : Pascal Thubert Erik Nordmark Samita Chakrabarti Filename : draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-05.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2017-05-12 Abstract: This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery, to clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique, simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, and provide enhancements to the registration capabilities, in particular for the registration to a Backbone Router for proxy ND operations. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-05 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon May 15 18:34:35 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB54F129487; Mon, 15 May 2017 18:34:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: 6lo@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149489847378.11864.5369253718858850299@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 18:34:33 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 01:34:34 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes of the IETF. Title : Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks Authors : Behcet Sarikaya Pascal Thubert Mohit Sethi Filename : draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2017-05-15 Abstract: This document defines an extension to 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery. This extension is designed for low-power and lossy network environments and it supports multi-hop operation. Nodes supporting this extension compute a Cryptographically Unique Interface ID and associate it with one or more of their Registered Addresses. The Cryptographic ID (Crypto-ID) uniquely identifies the owner of the Registered Address. It is used in place of the EUI-64 address that is specified in RFC 6775. Once an address is registered with a Cryptographic ID, only the owner of that ID can modify the state information of the Registered Address in the 6LR and 6LBR. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon May 15 18:39:13 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1951294F0 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 May 2017 18:39:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5HypiFLZq4EH for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 May 2017 18:39:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D2A512EB23 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 May 2017 18:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id b84so109819955wmh.0 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 May 2017 18:36:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RN/PiqJoIBSKFtlWC2RJKRHr/n+3vMxHLviuNbadr6U=; b=D7pNJ+QkkDQXcUh2m4XOPOy7NI+ncPm79xPSwiLNg5KqOLF6P5N8k68SNk7NDgqlTv YDaXS2Qr8/vBgydHPwI7fPNLxgF6DFkzgpU7Dv2RfrY3x4a/4JeAXgi/KsdksX/lc5KP X3J1j0GI73Yc/zwyPy3UGKeldVqWoKAZfJ7ZR9V066c25xBy/WwzMi0ZiexRLZng6BJ4 LedCz/3GqPE2d247AgerGy5wQcKI3w01EMwbHAoPq8GWOmPt57uao/QXfl2PcMIPeVSc qF4MWwLcyxK5qiJr5PIIUsfAOwpoyqV88veCwmAAVlWpsQRo6WDFyEQPNWcajily5ZI+ q/Lw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=RN/PiqJoIBSKFtlWC2RJKRHr/n+3vMxHLviuNbadr6U=; b=DNTJW6dXa6IqKKhYtCQpAThtgQSeBPmo51Oss/duZzTVBR+AbNNxTPzgAe3zzVOyyC FmqfEhJ9gb7d4bcpMVZZ68bZCd2lO0DufR1aowkZfgyqOtLOGj6Hf+B+3O9cfRRZ1hr1 g9FjuTKFYlcw+cAOXVTtQgoNQEHtHnB4fQpFso+Ys3P3N7X4HzlE9kQmCDHce5rDjzHO QPwjBcguNvGXhJnd1bH1lNOhF3R5NHTxqluYd6SHkCoqSoiWFUL2sCQqJM9gtP4x8d67 gdcC3Wqve3o4/Foz+2Qtj2wMgbtzhYDYU3rdu/Rsk9EgKcR3M9QssHf9iThIOx+z+LoD UTng== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAzuVurux4f3SjGYGAYeYZgjgYBUlAZUfGr0wJ3Vkvl1BzOuiVM UUtkgOp/3PFkua3s2kMes2R9dKKy+Q== X-Received: by 10.223.172.165 with SMTP id o34mr6697126wrc.155.1494898563759; Mon, 15 May 2017 18:36:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.134.125 with HTTP; Mon, 15 May 2017 18:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org From: Behcet Sarikaya Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 20:36:03 -0500 Message-ID: To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113c456cde463d054f9a31de" Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 01:39:12 -0000 --001a113c456cde463d054f9a31de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd Revision: 01 Title: Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks Document date: 2017-05-15 Group: 6lo Pages: 17 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd- 01.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd- 01 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01 Abstract: This document defines an extension to 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery. This extension is designed for low-power and lossy network environments and it supports multi-hop operation. Nodes supporting this extension compute a Cryptographically Unique Interface ID and associate it with one or more of their Registered Addresses. The Cryptographic ID (Crypto-ID) uniquely identifies the owner of the Registered Address. It is used in place of the EUI-64 address that is specified in RFC 6775. Once an address is registered with a Cryptographic ID, only the owner of that ID can modify the state information of the Registered Address in the 6LR and 6LBR. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --001a113c456cde463d054f9a31de Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd
Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A001
Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Address Protected Neighbor Discove= ry for Low-power and Lossy Networks
Document date:=C2=A0 2017-05-15
Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 6lo
Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 17
URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-= 01.txt
Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https= ://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd/
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://tools= .ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0htt= ps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01 Diff:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-01
Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This document defines an extension to 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discove= ry.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This extension is designed for low-power and lossy network
=C2=A0 =C2=A0environments and it supports multi-hop operation.=C2=A0 Nodes = supporting
=C2=A0 =C2=A0this extension compute a Cryptographically Unique Interface ID= and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0associate it with one or more of their Registered Addresses.= =C2=A0 The
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Cryptographic ID (Crypto-ID) uniquely identifies the owner of = the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Registered Address.=C2=A0 It is used in place of the EUI-64 ad= dress that
=C2=A0 =C2=A0is specified in RFC 6775.=C2=A0 Once an address is registered = with a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Cryptographic ID, only the owner of that ID can modify the sta= te
=C2=A0 =C2=A0information of the Registered Address in the 6LR and 6LBR.




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

The IETF Secretariat


--001a113c456cde463d054f9a31de-- From nobody Wed May 24 09:09:17 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFED12955A; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:09:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: 6lo@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149564215585.28413.16227022131357463075@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 09:09:15 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:09:16 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes of the IETF. Title : Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks Authors : Behcet Sarikaya Pascal Thubert Mohit Sethi Filename : draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-02.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2017-05-24 Abstract: This document defines an extension to 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery, RFC 6775. Nodes supporting this extension compute a cryptographic Owner Unique Interface ID and associate it with one or more of their Registered Addresses. Once an address is registered with a Cryptographic ID, only the owner of that ID can modify the anchor state information of the Registered Address, and Source Address Validation can be enforced. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue May 30 15:18:24 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A61E129471; Tue, 30 May 2017 15:18:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: g.e.montenegro@hotmail.com, suresh.krishnan@gmail.com, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.52.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149618270221.19900.10908595241667130957.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 15:18:22 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] 6lo - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 99 X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:18:22 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Gabriel Montenegro, a Chair of the 6lo working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes Area Name: Internet Area Session Requester: Gabriel Montenegro Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 61 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: lwig intarea core ace 6tisch 6man manet homenet lpwan httpbis quic Second Priority: roll v6ops detnet icnrg t2trg People who must be present: Samita Chakrabarti Suresh Krishnan james woodyatt Gabriel Montenegro Resources Requested: Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Wed May 31 10:45:47 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8894A127077 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 10:45:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PEj_jkgBAGpr for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com (mail-vk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FD65124D6C for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id p85so12429893vkd.3 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=puibvbS/GKK0sJ6ErgXVrlHig+OJ4Ja3HZITAgwM2M4=; b=QUhwaLPEZl9KHveJLfpRgBqShIObPyS0LyYiYy3x2FQJ0luhw+7knTVD+GpKdamoyA TX681DR+mnNnvS+CcJjBj+7S41uNHSbt8IAVwWbUXR8YEQvzt04h9mWHFlrP9B1xILRz ca3V8UsVUalUyRDbcM6iW51N1yXNkmq0HCSw3+B0bnZviT447telNzm0uNNR/7F7Q/x+ E/R2oTSln+mQyhEbpcUVjw8c1qdK0BQZ65ipv//I/w6PwYkowBUXl0U6QLc95yz9Ty9i Cfd/QXJbsoz+LXIMFe1GNHrUSaGeitzJNW0JgB32+QE6veG5K4gBtqa7zyZ+uC4ZX8hO J68A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=puibvbS/GKK0sJ6ErgXVrlHig+OJ4Ja3HZITAgwM2M4=; b=MckBgcgNxGUOACcBJ9GDoM/ATJ6MRHOnyS/9JbxQWe5e+sR97JxE7d/w4tQj9QUQtZ CACHp/7WEiJ8f+Ds+Su2b46kjLwReXhN99KI0SBXCk+2nYR1I9SuDWxBbQ8sygeEvBdq fjXPb7DFmQS7GrjD1kmtoKmy+42E8+sTZjOPtK1G8/p+iYkD2OZ4pi8KIc8C59XhGoMs PYcRs9Cdc+6Y6Xnp7H5sjs2nmqZapvPGeLobbQ4Es6viEZWTgYCrvfmPdlDLmJ2QYRLx xc3DHPwMS8Z0WwxRNSocP2w0+LhpmbV/7pCAqnqfiYKmnKEEGENcWzpKkXMAw3ctamV4 aYTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD/18b19apENY/uqdAqcPW7U5Oq7QCA2mbiB305x6r8gsGO17Iu H+NFJIZU+RfIz6g4xI1BSwTz2O0FYA== X-Received: by 10.31.166.139 with SMTP id p133mr12811379vke.123.1496252744008; Wed, 31 May 2017 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.167.78 with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2017 10:45:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Samita Chakrabarti Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 10:45:43 -0700 Message-ID: To: lo <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142d9924d0a180550d57d85" Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] Request for IETF99@Prague 6lo Agenda items X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 17:45:46 -0000 --001a1142d9924d0a180550d57d85 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello 6lo WG: It is the time again for requesting agenda items for Prague IETF meeting. We have requested for 2 hour slot this time. Please send your requests for 6lo agenda items by June 23rd (6-23-2017). The preliminary IETF agenda will be published around mid-June. As always please include the following in your request and send the request to both the chairs. Draft-name: Brief summary of description: Name of presenter: Purpose of the presentation/discussion: Cheers, -Samita --001a1142d9924d0a180550d57d85 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello 6lo WG:

It is the time again for = requesting agenda items for Prague IETF meeting.
We have requeste= d =C2=A0for 2 hour slot this time.

Please send you= r requests for 6lo agenda items by June 23rd (6-23-2017). The preliminary I= ETF agenda will be published around mid-June.=C2=A0

As always please include the following in your request and send the reque= st to both the chairs.

Draft-name:
Brief= summary of description:
Name of presenter:
Purpose of = the presentation/discussion:

Cheers,
-Sa= mita
--001a1142d9924d0a180550d57d85-- From nobody Wed May 31 11:19:30 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FDA5129576 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:19:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aHtI-uWh-poG for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:19:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua0-x236.google.com (mail-ua0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AEB4128854 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:19:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua0-x236.google.com with SMTP id j17so14364145uag.3 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:19:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=cq8W3q3t2/FK0K4HDpmTfh4r6Yd3+XwmAQFjLE63a4o=; b=AFLYFzmgyHU0tCT8qK4j1rC57LIhAteiSkFk1eb3oDTJSsFdR317H9cgKQJ00Z/bBR h0o/KWYflpUfGjCF3pC86qXzgB2euesyjbqoFghrBp0O96f8k1aT/Wu+csSw5s9egBYY vknw11jTUIgz9FW8Pg2yFe9ndhxz5vKITpLbPc9nH4TrvhVZFrSUEbnvy1Xe3TamghWK xhwAVjFTJOmIA45M1P4fXiCiz4bvKO/sfgkd5fEejv0v8WMxAPwpomXSgiDJ0tIDou5V ICBHYYuAPLhxYiFHhaMKAkyCEgLF52pzwLHEYbxD0F+ly0x3iVXO3skMOxftz/wTPMJ+ ZWHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=cq8W3q3t2/FK0K4HDpmTfh4r6Yd3+XwmAQFjLE63a4o=; b=XhbiRptt+YCSJ4uLOaskjvMEryC43FmMUD4ErdSkRe1fhHyTGiQDYZskouflEwxfwB eorvrR3C+Ow319Lsw+RE3ZNWji7L03bxfyJu1KBYe42UdZd7jKvhPOYeETzXTx7MFYhH g3rYzROGwHR3G/3X7Ga6biFcpy8blK6RvcOzimb4VlZkz8qmmLj9g/9X11Wx2tj9LfET FNkssxsEpwJymVomZU7v+OjTrmHlWWCb7c2WJ+Hd96IA/pUKLQaex/QVdW+YnXlyNwFU 5yuMvsVQeXdC1jiPI1oFSJBVkeP0siL5iNG2qKkuSfm4hFb7qfmhov5j8WACKfubqSMT Tejw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBv5q8gAd/AkZLlG7+ZbTqb0XeKbWglmrHPrKKhO7cPQNwldtby bcvXBf77IxZVmaJqNzqF8NWFrm+3LBVY X-Received: by 10.176.91.83 with SMTP id v19mr11983159uae.26.1496254756161; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:19:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.167.78 with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:19:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Samita Chakrabarti Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 11:19:15 -0700 Message-ID: To: lo <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f897c3c10080550d5f581" Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] Recent RFCs X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:19:19 -0000 --f403045f897c3c10080550d5f581 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" FYI: Congratulations to co-authors, reviewers, shepherds and all involved in publication of the following new documents since last IETF! IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element for the IETF - RFC 8137 [ non-WG item ] Transmission of IPv6 over MS/TP networks - RFC 8163 Transmission of IPv6 over DECT-ULE - RFC 8105 Thanks to our AD, Suresh as well! -Samita & Gabriel --f403045f897c3c10080550d5f581 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FYI:

Congratulations to co-authors, rev= iewers, shepherds and all involved in publication of the following new docu= ments since last IETF!

IEEE 802.15.4 Information E= lement for the IETF - RFC 8137=C2=A0[ non-WG item ]
Transmission of IPv6 over MS/TP networks - R= FC 8163
Transmission of IPv6 over DECT-ULE - =C2=A0RFC 8105
=
Thanks to our AD= , Suresh as well!
-Samita & Gabriel
--f403045f897c3c10080550d5f581--