Subject: [Roll] [roll] #88: Data option and ULP

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:10:34 -0000

#88: Data option and ULP

 Problem (proposed resolution exists)
 ------------------------------
 An option exists for carrying payload. The use of the option (tunnel,
 transport?) is not described properly.

 Proposed resolution
 ------------------------
 Add a next header and a sequence to the data option so upper layers can
 be determined.

 Discussion
 -------------

 [Pascal]
 Can the data option be different from one DIO to the next?

 [Mukul]
 The contents of the data option are specified by the origin (for the
 DIO) or the target (for the DRO). In theory, an origin can send
 different data options in different DIOs it generates for a particular
 route discovery (assuming that it does generate multiple DIOs; it is
 very much possible that the origin generates just one DIO and then sits
 silent). But, then the origin is taking the risk that some of the data
 options would never each the target(s). I guess the origin might do this
 if the data sent earlier is now stale and the origin would like the
 target(s) to receive newer data.

 [Pascal2] This should be discussed in the draft. You need to set the
 expectation for the upper layer(s). Is there a way to differentiate
 different data sets? Eg instance or sequence nb?
 My suggestion so far is that the data should have 3 bits of next header
 and 5 bits of sequence.

 [Mukul2] This sounds good to me. I will incorporate this in the draft
 unless I hear a better proposal.

 [Pascal3] Cool. Please make that another LC issue and the proposed
 resolution, see if there is anyone adding anything to it.

 [Mukul3] Actually, I would like the next header to be 4 bits and the
 sequence number to be 4 bits. 4-bit sequence number will still allow up
 to 16 different messages to be sent during a P2P-RPL discovery. 4 bit
 next header will allow 16 different possibilities. We can have so many
 different ways to compress UDP/TCP headers. I think 3 bit next header
 may not be sufficient.

 [Pascal4] Cool. Let's use that as the proposed resolution

 [Mukul4] OK.
 Pascal

-- 
-----------------------------------+---------------------
 Reporter:  jpv@…                  |      Owner:  mukul@…
     Type:  defect                 |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                  |  Milestone:
Component:  p2p-rpl                |    Version:
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |   Keywords:
-----------------------------------+---------------------

Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/88>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: Mukul Goyal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 10:57:59 -0500 (CDT)

Hi JP, Richard

Please mark this ticket as closed. Or would it be done when I submit the new version of the draft with this change in?

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:10:34 AM
Subject: [roll] #88: Data option and ULP

#88: Data option and ULP

 Proposed resolution
 ------------------------

 Discussion
 -------------

 [Pascal]

 [Mukul]

 [Mukul4] OK.
 Pascal

---

From: Mukul Goyal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:39:49 -0500 (CDT)

#88: Data option and ULP

 Problem 

 Resolution
 ------------------------

 Discussion
 -------------

 [Pascal]

 [Mukul]

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:12:53 +0200

Mukul, 

I agree with this resolution. We can close the ticket and I'll review the text once you publish.

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: Mukul Goyal [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: jeudi 12 avril 2012 04:40
To: [email-masked]
Cc: JP Vasseur; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Subject: Closure text for ticket #88

#88: Data option and ULP

 Problem

 Resolution
 ------------------------
 Add a next header and a sequence to the data option so upper layers can  be determined.

 Discussion
 -------------

 [Pascal]

 [Mukul]
 The contents of the data option are specified by the origin (for the
 DIO) or the target (for the DRO). In theory, an origin can send  different data options in different DIOs it generates for a particular  route discovery (assuming that it does generate multiple DIOs; it is  very much possible that the origin generates just one DIO and then sits  silent). But, then the origin is taking the risk that some of the data  options would never each the target(s). I guess the origin might do this  if the data sent earlier is now stale and the origin would like the
 target(s) to receive newer data.

 [Pascal2] This should be discussed in the draft. You need to set the  expectation for the upper layer(s). Is there a way to differentiate  different data sets? Eg instance or sequence nb?
 My suggestion so far is that the data should have 3 bits of next header  and 5 bits of sequence.

 [Mukul2] This sounds good to me. I will incorporate this in the draft  unless I hear a better proposal.

 [Pascal3] Cool. Please make that another LC issue and the proposed  resolution, see if there is anyone adding anything to it.

 [Mukul3] Actually, I would like the next header to be 4 bits and the  sequence number to be 4 bits. 4-bit sequence number will still allow up  to 16 different messages to be sent during a P2P-RPL discovery. 4 bit  next header will allow 16 different possibilities. We can have so many  different ways to compress UDP/TCP headers. I think 3 bit next header  may not be sufficient.

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:21:37 -0000

#88: Data option and ULP

Changes (by jpv@…):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 Mukul,

 I agree with this resolution. We can close the ticket and I'll review the
 text once you publish.

 Pascal

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Mukul Goyal [mailto:[email-masked]]
 Sent: jeudi 12 avril 2012 04:40
 To: [email-masked]
 Cc: JP Vasseur; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
 Subject: Closure text for ticket #88

 #88: Data option and ULP

 Problem

 Resolution
 ------------------------

 Discussion
 -------------

 [Pascal]

 [Mukul]
 The contents of the data option are specified by the origin (for the
 DIO) or the target (for the DRO). In theory, an origin can send  different
 data options in different DIOs it generates for a particular  route
 discovery (assuming that it does generate multiple DIOs; it is  very much
 possible that the origin generates just one DIO and then sits  silent).
 But, then the origin is taking the risk that some of the data  options
 would never each the target(s). I guess the origin might do this  if the
 data sent earlier is now stale and the origin would like the
 target(s) to receive newer data.

 different ways to compress UDP/TCP headers. I think 3 bit next header  may
 not be sufficient.

 _______________________________________________
 Roll mailing list
 [email-masked]
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

-- 
-----------------------------------+----------------------
 Reporter:  jpv@…                  |       Owner:  mukul@…
     Type:  defect                 |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                  |   Milestone:
Component:  p2p-rpl                |     Version:
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                         |
-----------------------------------+----------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/88#comment:1>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>