Subject: [icnrg] ICNLoWPAN Document Action

From: Cenk Gündoğan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 08:26:43 +0200

Dear group,

Table 2 of the ICNLoWPAN document [1] requests IANA updates to the
"6LoWPAN Dispatch Type Field" registry.  The last entry of table 2
clashes, however, with an existing registration. (11 11xxxx for "Page
dispatch").

The solution is simple: we increase the prefix for the last entry from
"11 1xxxxx" to "11 10xxxx".  This decreases the option space for
dispatches, but that particular dispatch (Figure 26) has a "Reserved"
bit, which we can drop to increase it again.

This:
 0                                       1
 0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   0   1   2   3   4   5	 	  
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+	  
| 1 | 1 | 1 |CID|EXT|VER|FLG|FRS|PAY|RCT|MGH| PLTYP |EXP|VAL|RSV|	  
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+	  
  	
Becomes:
0                                       1
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   0   1   2   3   4   5	        
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+	
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |VER|FLG|FRS|PAY|RCT|MGH| PLTYP |EXP|VAL|CID|EXT|	
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+	

This diff [2] summarizes the necessary changes, it also moves the CID
and EXT bits of all dispatches to the end to keep the styling
harmonized.

What does the group think about this proposed solution?  Are there any
objections?  To let it sufficiently marinate, feedback is very welcome
until wednesday next week :-)

Cheers,
Cenk

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-10
[2] https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-10&url2=https://inet.haw-hamburg.de/tmp/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-11.txt/@@download/file/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-11.txt

--
Cenk Gündoğan

Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
Dept. of Computer Science / Internet Technologies Group
Berliner Tor 7, 20099 Hamburg, Germany
Fon: +49 40 42875 - 8426
Mail: [email-masked]
Web: https://www.inet.haw-hamburg.de/

---

From: Cenk Gündoğan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:03:54 +0200

Dear group,

just a heads-up that we will proceed with the below proposed solution to
fix the mentioned registry clashes.

Thanks,
Cenk

On Wed, Sep 15 2021 at 08:26 +0200, Cenk Gündoğan wrote:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Dear group,
>
> [2]
> https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-10&url2=https://inet.haw-hamburg.de/tmp/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-11.txt/@@download/file/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-11.txt

--

Cenk Gündoğan

---

From: Cenk Gündoğan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:18:54 +0200

Dear group,

I was in contact with the designated expert (Pascal Thubert) for the
6lowpan dispatch registry.  Pascal asked whether we could optimize the
dispatch allocation space.  I had to juggle with a few bits; all minor
changes.

For CCNx, we formerly compressed the "Version" field and used a "bit"
for denoting that.  In the current diff, this "version bit" is missing
now to gain space and we always assume CCNx version 1 (as mandated by
CCNx [1]).  This is also what 6LoWPAN is doing with the IP version
field.

The current diff is here [2].  There aren't any major changes since my
last request for feedback.  So any feedback by next monday is welcome
before we move forward?

Thanks,
Cenk

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8609#section-3.2
[2] https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-10&url2=https://inet.haw-hamburg.de/tmp/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-11.txt/@@download/file/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-11.txt