Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #103: trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:53:56 -0000

#103: trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Source: [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08161.html]

 From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca>
 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:03:54 -0400

 Don Sturek <d.sturek at att.net> wrote:
     > 1) "- I have argued that to increase MPL's applicability,
     > PROACTIVE_FORWARDING should be a per-interface and not a per-
 forwarder
     > setting.  I can imagine, for example, a router that has both LLN and

 “I think that the IETF *functional requirements* question is really:
   Can an implementer make it per-interface without having an impact on
   the implementation in other nodes?

 If the answer is, there is no impact, then it really doesn't matter.
 Other "ip-forwarding" settings have been described as per-router and
 generalized into per-interface many times before.

 I have added your comments to ticket #103, which I re-opened.
 I will close it again today --- I would appreciate comments in the mailing
 list as to whether there is anything to fix here.”
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Source: [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08163.html]

 From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn at ieee.org>
 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:02:03 -0400

 “Experience shows that tuning parameters are not always exposed by a
 given implementation and even when they are, they are most likely left
 at their default value.

 My concern is that the suggested default for this parameter may lead to
 suboptimal behavior on non-LLN links (by ensuring straight flooding for
 some number of intervals).

 Even if there is "room for interpretation" on considering this a per-
 interface
 parameter, the correct default needs to be specified in this draft or else
 a
 BCP or something will be necessary.

 It would be good to hear Jonathan's opinion…”

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-trickle-
  [email-masked]       |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  reopened
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  trickle-     |     Version:
  mcast                  |  Resolution:
 Severity:  In WG Last   |
  Call                   |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103#comment:4>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:13:22 -0000

Source: [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08412.html]

 From: Don Sturek <d.sturek at att.net>
 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:45:14 -0800

 “I believe it would be useful to have PROACTIVE_FORWARDING per interface
 and not per forwarder.   This would allow a device with multiple
 interfaces to operate off of different MPL settings (for example, a device
 that uses MPL in a HAN but also has an AMI interface as well in the area
 of smart metering)”

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103#comment:5>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 08:29:07 -0000

Source: [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08415.html]

     From: peter van der Stok <stokcons at xs4all.nl>

     Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 09:13:13 +0100

 I agree with Don's statement. It is pretty essential to get routers with
 multiple interfaces working and implement the concept of an admin -local
 scope policy implemented in an automatic fashion.
 Peter

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103#comment:6>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 11:20:35 -0000

Source: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08417.html

 From: "Dijk, Esko" <esko.dijk at philips.com>
 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:32:47 +0000

 Agree that per-interface setting would be better; consider e.g. a 6LoWPAN
 border router as the MPL Forwarder. It has two interfaces e.g.
 LAN/802.15.4 and may participate in a different MPL Domain per interface.
 Due to different properties of these technologies, a different setting for
 PROACTIVE_FORWARDING  on these interfaces may be required.

 Esko

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103#comment:7>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:51:59 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 This issue is fixed, the solution was added in Section 5.4 of the draft-
 ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-06:

 "PROACTIVE_FORWARDING  A boolean value that indicates whether the MPL
 Forwarder schedules MPL Data Message transmissions after receiving them
 for the first time.  It is RECOMMENDED that all MPL       Interfaces
 attached to the same link of a given MPL Domain use the same value for
 PROACTIVE_FORWARDING and has a default value of TRUE.  The mechanism for
 setting PROACTIVE_FORWARDING is not specified within this document."

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-trickle-
  [email-masked]       |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  trickle-     |     Version:
  mcast                  |  Resolution:  fixed
 Severity:  In WG Last   |
  Call                   |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103#comment:8>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>