Re: [Roll] DAO-Projection and new MOPs

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal,

I know what we can do and can not do. If something is wrong we can fix it
as technology is changing.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 9:12 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Abdussalam
>
> We do care about backwards compatibility.
>

I don't mind backwards but with good planning, it seems there was no good
plan in the first design.

And we do not change RFCs.
>

We do comment on all old RFCs to change in future. We do obsolete and new
RFC take over, it happens all the time in IETF.


> What we do is publish new RFCs the supersede the old for new devices in a
> spirit of maintaining maximum compatibility with old devices.
>

That is one solution approach, but there are other solutions, don't forget
that IPv6 is changing full protocol of IPv4 and not compatible, it was IETF
creation, so it is ok in our group if we agree on such approach. Changing
MOP is not changing the protocol.

AB

>
> Regards,
>
> Pascal
>
> Le 19 déc. 2018 à 05:45, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> a
> écrit :
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:42 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> All for it. What do others think?
>>
>
> I think I posted a message before months about this MOP problem but no
> reply from the list, but now seems there started a discussion, but yes the
> MOP should be more than 3 bit. I suggest modifying that RFC that specifies
> 3 bits, I don't support extending but changing.
>
>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Roll <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Rahul Arvind Jadhav
>> > Sent: mardi 18 décembre 2018 04:52
>> > To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>
>> > Subject: Re: [Roll] DAO-Projection and new MOPs
>> >
>> > I'm wondering apart from MOP extension, it would be nice to have
>> capability
>> > flags in DIO.
>> > 1. Capabilities field can work with ext-MOP to handshake additional
>> > capabilities ..
>> > 2. Even leaf nodes can understand capabilities ... unlike MOP which is
>> relevant
>> > only to routers.
>> > Capabilities may be optional to support unlike MOP which is mandatory
>> to be
>> > supported if the node is to be a 6LR in the instance.
>> >
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Roll [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert
>> > > (pthubert)
>> > > Sent: 18 December 2018 01:27
>> > > To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>
>> > > Subject: Re: [Roll] DAO-Projection and new MOPs
>> > >
>> > > I agree Michael
>> > >
>> > > Trouble is that there is no room left in MOP space (3 bits). We’ll
>> > > soon need to define a value to mean extended.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > Pascal
>> > >
>> > > > Le 17 déc. 2018 à 18:52, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
>> > > > a
>> > > écrit :
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I strongly believe that we should have a specific new MOP:
>> > > >  "Non-storing with DAO-project"
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software
>> > > Works
>> > > > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Roll mailing list
>> > > > Roll@ietf..org <[e-mail]>
>> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Roll mailing list
>> > > [e-mail]
>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Roll mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>