Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-17.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:05:38 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low Power and Lossy Networks
	Author(s)       : Mukul Goyal
                          Emmanuel Baccelli
                          Matthias Philipp
                          Anders Brandt
                          Jerald Martocci
	Filename        : draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-17.txt
	Pages           : 39
	Date            : 2013-03-20

Abstract:
   This document specifies a point-to-point route discovery mechanism,
   complementary to the RPL core functionality.  This mechanism allows
   an IPv6 router to discover "on demand" routes to one or more IPv6
   routers in the LLN such that the discovered routes meet specified
   metrics constraints.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-17

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-17

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

---

From: Mukul Goyal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:55:47 -0500 (CDT)

Hi all

Besides a number of editorial changes, the new version (-17) has the following key changes over the previous version:

1) The data option has been removed.
2) Only options allowed in a P2P mode DIO are: P2P-RDO, the dodag configuration option, the target option, the metric container options, the route information option. Any other option (in particular a prefix information option) found inside a P2P mode DIO will be ignored.
3) Suggested rules for RPLInstanceID reuse (Section 6.1).
4) Included the requirement that addresses in the TargetAddr and Address vector fields inside a P2P-RDO MUST be global or unique local (section 7).
5) Clarified that it is not possible to solicit P2P mode DIOs using DIS messages (Section 9.1)
6) Added a new section "Secure P2P RPL Operation". The basic requirement is that all routers participating in a secure P2P-RPL route discovery MUST follow the same Security Configuration (<T, Algorithm, KIM, LVL> tuple) as the Origin. Also disallowed the use of per-pair keys for a P2P-RPL route discovery.
7) Updated the "Security Considerations" section in view of the new "Secure P2P RPL Operation" section.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:05:38 AM
Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-17.txt

Abstract:

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

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:46:24 -0400

>>>>> "Mukul" == Mukul Goyal <[email-masked]> writes:
    Mukul> Hi all

    Mukul> Besides a number of editorial changes, the new version (-17)
    Mukul> has the following key changes over the previous version:

Thank you Mukul, for persuing this process with the IESG reviewers.

My opinion is that much of this should have happened in sight of the WG,
but there is some changing IESG view as to how to do this.

I'd like to ask the WG to think strongly about the changes that have
occurred.    Do they affect your current or future usage of P2P?

If they do, then I think we need to talk about whether this means you
will write an enhancement document... reminding that P2P is going
forward as Experimental.  Likely it will switch tracks in 12 months once
there is some significant deployment reports.

We are in IESG review process, and we aren't doing another WGLC on
this.  My opinion is that none of the things changed affect real use 
cases that people currently deploying care about.

(and also thanks to the other authors)

(And remind that we a WGLC on mcast-trickle, aka "MPL" aka "Mipple")

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/

---

From: Mukul Goyal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:07:22 -0500 (CDT)

Hi Michael

>My opinion is that none of the things changed affect real use 

That is my opinion too.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Richardson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:46:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-17.txt

    Mukul> Hi all

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:58:08 -0000

Hi,

Thanks, Michael for taking the care to ask the question, below.
I have waited a week and have heard only form you and Mukul, both saying that
you don't think the changes affect real use cases for today.

So I will now go ahead and resume processing of the document.

Thanks to all, and especially Mukul, for getting the issues resolved.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Michael
> Richardson
> Sent: 21 March 2013 14:46
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks