Re: [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 08 August 2016 13:29 UTC

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal
Thread-Index: AQHR8BeYJib8nXzUt0ybbbnhEHPt7KA/EBLA
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 13:28:58 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 13:28:18 +0000
Message-ID: <f1e669eeddc048b7bb72ee95b6ec33a6@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <5548.1470511219@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5548.1470511219@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/siyce-StaNCnSvsreFyZmbaJGsA>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal
Precedence: list

Hello Michael:

This raises 2 questions:
The problem with a normative ref to ROLL's useofrpi is that it will delay the publication till useofrpi is ready to RFC. Do we need that? 
We could benefit from a non-normative reference to useofrpi, but that would not replace a normative reference to RFC6282, would it?

Cheers,

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6tisch [mailto:6tisch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: samedi 6 août 2016 21:20
> To: 6tisch@ietf.org
> Subject: [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal
> 
> 
> Should section 11.2 reference ROLL's useofrpi document rather than
> RFC6282 now?
> 
> 11.2.  RPL Configuration
> 
>    In addition to the Objective Function (OF), nodes in a multihop
>    network using RPL MUST indicate the preferred mode of operation using
>    the MOP field in the DIO.  Nodes not being able to operate in the
>    specified mode of operation MUST only join as leaf nodes.  RPL
>    information and hop-by-hop extension headers MUST follow [RFC6553]
>    and [RFC6554] specification.  In the case that the packets formed at
>    the LLN need to cross through intermediate routers, these MUST
>    follow the IP in IP encapsulation requirement specified by the [RFC6282]
>    and
> 
>    [RFC2460].  Routing extension headers such as RPI [RFC6550] and SRH
>    [RFC6554], and outer IP headers in case of encapsulation MUST be
>    compressed according to [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] and
>    [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -=
> IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>

Re: [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
[6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal Michael Richardson