Re: [Roll] New column in ND status?

Alvaro Retana <> Tue, 15 December 2020 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6920F3A11DA for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:18:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lU4fDeg0YRDc for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:18:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9B303A11D0 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g20so28240290ejb.1 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:18:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=20g6VnK0Ze7dxwGyPaGEFfY/2J5HHWnaw4py3gCnmlw=; b=Ey7ywQhnLXd4+KJduw+EUW8BtDQVK924KHiI5kHN6W6tKl23n/a+qKbfPM6t87k9Gy 7l0wPkB5rIdFEpd8ES2RTgUZ2qB6THDEf9lRYxyZ+HAzJnWwy251ZUPCnQgLnJ6xsJ32 /kKktXYwC3IWliOGn3kv3SvkBown61kurirlGeQD3I92/mPvca+AnWnDCbY9pkapJXMM lnpSMoXgj5PJAsxaZkVQaRaA1wKRzYVzGECZFnQ+hJ8BwxfEHbpXEXS4Mn5Am6wKsM+S mRJxcWSCS41xqsusDfccM6fhof0j7dLnjEZzTUCH4kQ/oHlK6wNXeKfLy5jCC8+h1UZc B90Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=20g6VnK0Ze7dxwGyPaGEFfY/2J5HHWnaw4py3gCnmlw=; b=qDbcWESeZbeTI72DRGubnxEZs1BsTgPKoIM5lDJT/dMez7QAtD+A4tTqr/4UliL8S3 FSYr4sryg0mae59dCwNUIvEqIu9L1ougW0K6g9+0DhMtbEOYtrJwIyDE0fL/84HwxSvo lKxoY0ddV+ENuxk2i9x/Ajnn3Yow3JQ0DiQxI1X8uCUQKOnPX/0599NHrF+T9W4+kVwZ uVpAiJ47RxQ+QH5JEpwX/4amgTzgamFHa+W0pCS6SRf86OVUYc+AAxXOeEC/5xjeTMwG 0rZ8Za4ebIDvDOebma6/YqaoFMzQcMe8J1U2uyBckk5/zltdinzvysXlUvVPrQoxEOsc SB+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sAcuBTJh1mKvC5+in5JXye1myPGjhiZX0Gv0uyN560rwx1wxh jEnoPekVFkgOQ2GIEY26uqDsVwMC6e2zy2+rOw3eiUoP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyr0m1aVuUuCNTyvV5mtvdgGRQNXRFH959JbRhxCbQ0YS+fg5+Zwf9MsW2QNbhjBNx3/LNWe4W1t7tMxU9Bjj4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:32d6:: with SMTP id k22mr3267574ejk.457.1608045480308; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:17:59 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:17:59 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>, Elwyn Davies <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a2f70c05b682430a"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] New column in ND status?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:18:06 -0000



I see Elwyn’s point, and agree that it might be nice to see that in the

However, your point about the description being from the RPL perspective
keeps me from thinking that it is a necessary addition.  If I remember
correctly, not all the status codes may be considered the same way in RPL
when compared to ND.  Also, there’s no E flag used in ND.

I don’t think we should make the extra change to the registry in this



On December 15, 2020 at 1:58:50 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ( wrote:

Hello Alvaro

Elwyn has a suggestion that I wanted to run by you:

>> s6.3, next to last para. s8 and s 12.2:  In view of the statement in
>> The RPL Root MUST set the 'E' flag to 1 for all rejection and unknown
>> codes. The status codes in the 1-10 range [RFC8505] are all considered
>> rejections. I think that IANA should be requested to add a column to the
>> status codes registry being modified by s12.2 to add a column that
identifies a
>> status code as a rejection or otherwise.   Some words in s8 may be

> Well that would require normative text on the 6LoWPAN part.
> I guess we can do that at the next iteration of a 6LoWPAN ND
> For now what we specify is that from the RPL perspective the listed codes
> a failure such that the RPL operation that wraps it cannot happen and
that's enough for us.

ED>  While I understand that it would be polite to involve 6LoWPAN, WGs
don't 'own' RFCs and their associated IANA registries.  Since this draft
'needs' the extra information I personally wouldn't see a problem in asking
for the extra column. It doesn't break anythng 6LoWPAN are doing AFAICS.
Anyway that's not my call...  ask your AD.

What do you think?