Re: [Roll] Which functions in RPLv2?

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Mon, 14 September 2020 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBA53A0CDD for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OgruI0B0_WcZ for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47A973A0B54 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com with SMTP id e23so9646953vsk.2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+Sip0fFy9/qeyMLKEQpLGvHNkwULTdgooEaGgSTVPgk=; b=tCxUyJnTaAxIm67FwAj2d3d/bVrhQAsepzbelWZauT3gG+K0dc6x1EJTKMuYY3yH30 aSxQ9d9ApkactpD+ee/azKemWHoHdvsOCgft4eecC8DFQkLt+4TdIHyYg6VeWnbp9XM+ jVcjQjyUb+QGSD+I2J4BKdami8P85yj+mnbCmJD2igWXiWiIj38Al8wFPwhQ9DZSlm3N Z/Q3KmOpOvyzOW5TOUOYSHZgzAg2h0ds4ZUnmhgk4mHAg9soOxtQ1dp9ZJLp1MtrhWhb hFuEGj9KiIpUNBBNkOQIRMlHAopuluxbfkNu6PIOBHitYCuGaZU44wTB91Q0DXt2esLg TxDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=+Sip0fFy9/qeyMLKEQpLGvHNkwULTdgooEaGgSTVPgk=; b=Pa4cUu7E7l1m5QWPBfjGMyeb+VfVdF22rQYaDLpQYnkbe8YN75TmfdAAaNxXpDuVml DG0usPbZg+ofg+ATshuagTOHnRZRQW+lfarwPOzc4M4T+qipaqKtivhbbo+WMWV10NTh 3BGLJMNblm1jOTtJr4+LovKjLNOohclJH75yVcTKUXvRoh/A9ShtJ7cg7y1Pixxyso8f GOGX6f1gtRDs0qUCZSs3IfAc8VGMlctX4Ez6Pk0jum85EOtC5uHMPtwUvIr3VaO/J3T6 lB6fYIFFoejkui5bsKCXA62lCp8DOO7nBD9dlNSsAvDXuOLA+HE7/z9kRuc/HnSzWi/8 ixMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531aBudP+55VzMVk6n2Txh/u6LsLZoeGFu07SJPs108insTdx57C fzlcdy5GpPIPU39mLM4YNS3OGwY/BFlRu1XhwhCBdLRE4BbTAQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxE/99j7ebhMB3kIYhgI91F5rq6DukM182DculVuv9swfuhD90SRcgl+Q2sh3v2uN4Uq4x6rwpoeSG3LlXCsZ8=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:6b87:: with SMTP id g129mr6861172vsc.53.1600090656298; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB35656D743C23C2884D7ECDFAD8230@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB35656D743C23C2884D7ECDFAD8230@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:37:00 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUep3z9hom_VFhrd6LO4PvhTVALt5d_STjRRRNXzVPkumw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002d5b8505af462318"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/-LO4IZnTlxApT3sM7x_1UQ8q1D0>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Which functions in RPLv2?
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:37:56 -0000

Hi,

Suggested topics are collected here:
https://github.com/roll-wg/RPL_v2_topics

Thank you,

Ines

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 2:30 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hello Rahul
>
>
>
> I renamed the thread.
>
>
>
> In your first list 1..5 I’d say they are all mandatory and the first 2
> always on.
>
>
>
> There’s also:
>
> 6) P-DAO for SDN-RPL and
>
> 7) AODV-RPL.
>
> I’d make those 2 optional
>
>
>
> And yes I believe that the points in observations need to be addressed.
>
> Each deserves a thread I believe. Let me start a few based on your email
> as well…
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Rahul Jadhav
> *Sent:* lundi 14 septembre 2020 12:38
> *To:* Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Roll] roll WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-09-30 - Call for
> Agenda Items-
>
>
>
> Will now be the right time to check consensus with the WG on what
> behaviour may have to be mandated as part of RPLv2?
>
>
>
> Following are some of the points which immediately comes to my mind:
>
>
>
> 1. Use of revised Option Type (0x23) in RPI ... (Obsolete use of 0x63 RPI
> Option Type value).
>
> 2. Mandating the use of 6LoRH (RFC 8138) ... (Allows compression of SRH
> (non-storing) and RPI (storing mode)). This is something that was discussed
> in context to turnon-8138 T-bit draft recently.
>
> 3. Use of MOPex (This is how we know the instance is RPLv2)
>
> 4. Support for Ext Control Options. (Allows Backward compatibility for new
> extns... part for same mopex draft)
>
> 5. Support for Capabilities. (Enables backward compatibility, allows
> incremental feature support)
>
>
>
> There are some points from RPL Observations draft [2] which could be
> clarified as part of this work item. Not sure if those points could go in
> as part of this draft? For e.g., Path Control Bits handling issue in 6550
> [1] ... 2) Mandating handling (not sending) of multiple targets in DAO [3]
>
>
>
> WG could provide feedback on the following aspects:
>
> 1. Do you feel one of the points above need not be mandated?
>
> 2. Do you feel there is some other point which needs to be addressed?
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-observations-04#section-10
>
> [2] RPL Observations:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-observations-04
>
> [3]
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-observations-04#section-7
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Michael Richardson <
> mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> *Sent:* 14 September 2020 02:09 PM
> *To:* Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Roll] roll WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-09-30 - Call for
> Agenda Items-
>
>
>
>
> Georgios PAPADOPOULOS <gpapadopoulos.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > Regarding the RPLv2, do you think it would be possible to have at the
>     > end of the day everything in one single document?
>
> Yes, eventually, we'd do rfc6550bis, and we'd merge in all the documents,
> throw out the pieces that we didn't implement, and maybe advance to
> Internet Standard.
>
>     > In stead of going over multiple documents, and multiple RFCs
> tomorrow,
>     > imho, it would be more efficient to have one single RFC for the RPLv2
>     > like the RFC 6550 for RPL.
>
>     > What do you think?
>
> It's just too soon.
> We actually need to sort out the things we want to do.
> Editing the huge rfc6550 won't be productive at this point.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>