Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 06 October 2020 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 904063A147F; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gVIZWMv6wK1I; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC5653A0EAF; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCCD389AF; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:27:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bOjHUw677fcd; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:27:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5608D389AD; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:27:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4C870D; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:22:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves\@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves@ietf.org>, "roll-chairs\@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxgYifi+U=fTdFk5Fz+a1ArbFUzxBbeDeORhk30n2N3Ew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMMESszw4SuUQtchiqk-o7Z=62X+U2af4==X5S_=rJ-3y4Dn=w@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356593481245BC85A03D4003D83F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsxgYifi+U=fTdFk5Fz+a1ArbFUzxBbeDeORhk30n2N3Ew@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 14:22:15 -0400
Message-ID: <29990.1602008535@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/-rxaqbA9cPqBkCPWDCnrUD3j56o>
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18
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: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 18:22:19 -0000

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > ...  510 7.1.  Support of 6LoWPAN ND

    doc> 512  In order to obtain routing services from a 6LR, a RUL MUST
    doc> implement 513  [RFC8505] and set the "R" and "T" flags in the
    doc> EARO.  The RUL SHOULD 514  support [AP-ND] to protect the ownership of
    doc> its addresses.  The RUL 515  MUST NOT request routing services from a
    doc> 6LR that does not originate 516  RA messages with a CIO that has the L,
    doc> P, and E flags all set as 517  discussed in Section 3.3.1, unless
    doc> configured to do so.

    > [major] I may be lost already...  A RUL is by definition RPL-unaware.
    > It then follows that a RUL can't be assumed to be aware of this
    > specification, right?  If so, then all the Normative language used in
    > this section can't be used because we can't specify the behavior of a
    > node that (by definition) is not aware of this document.  [See more
    > related comments below.]

We would have liked to have written a document that explained how to support
RFC8504-compliant hosts, and at the time of 8504, we tried to make this an
issue, but we failed.

So, yes, a RUL has to be aware of this document, and RFC8505, but it does
need to speak RPL.

Such a node could be connected to a MANET or OLSR mesh using RFC8505-ND
equally well.

Maybe we should consider changing the title of the document?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide