Re: [C310] AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 9010 <draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-30.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Lynne

Dear RFC editor. I made a full pass on the draft, rechecked after this republication. Happy that you used U for the flag now.

Nits:

RFC 8200 is about IPv6 not routing services so:
"to provide IPv6 routing services [RFC8200]" -> "to provide routing services for IPv6 [RFC8200]"

"The unicast packet-forwarding operation by the 6LR serving a RUL is described in Section 4.1 of [RFC9008]."
That's really section 4.1.1

RPL root -> RPL DODAG root.
Root -> root or "DODAG root" as you feel best. Please do not change the P flag definition that would impact IANA.

Please record my approval for publication.

Keep safe,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> Sent: vendredi 26 mars 2021 18:16
> To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; Alvaro Retana
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; RFC System <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 9010 <draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-30.txt>
> NOW AVAILABLE
> 
> Hi, Michael.
> 
> Thank you for spotting those items!  I made further updates and reposted the
> files (no new iteration).
> 
> Please note that in addition to reverting the change in Section 9.2.2 per your
> note, I also reverted to "the External ('E') flag in the Transit Information Option
> (TIO)" in Section 3.  Please let me know if this is incorrect.
> 
> Please review, and let me know if I missed anything or if anything else is
> incorrect.  (You'll need to refresh your browser.)
> 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010-auth48diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010-lastdiff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010-lastrfcdiff.html
> 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010-xmldiff1.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010-xmldiff2.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9010-alt-diff.html
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
> 
> > On Mar 26, 2021, at 9:33 AM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> 1. changed what I *believe* to be the "E" flags in question to "U"
> >
> >> 2. gone ahead and updated Sections 12.5 and 12.6 per your note
> >> further below (but using "U" instead of "E")
> >
> > I might be suffering from the confusion that we are trying to reduce!
> > But, I think that we need to change the name of the flag in figure 6
> > and the description too, right?
> >
> >                            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
> >                              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >                              |E|A|StatusValue|
> >                              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> >                        Figure 6: RPL Status Format
> >
> >   This specification updates the RPL Status with the following
> >   subfields:
> >
> >   E:  1-bit flag.  Set to 1 to indicate a rejection.  When set to 0, a
> >       Status value of 0 indicates Success / Unqualified acceptance and
> >       other values indicate "Not an outright rejection" as per
> >       RFC 6550.
> >
> > section 9.2.2:
> >
> >   3.  The 6LR sets the External ('E')-> ('U') flag in the TIO to indicate that
> >       it is redistributing an external target into the RPL network.
> >
> > I don't think that this replacement is correct.
> >
> > I think that the rest of the updates are correct.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> >           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> >
> >
> >
> >