Re: [Roll] enrollment priority

[Konrad Iwanicki <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

On 23/11/2021 06:49, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hello Michael
> 
> Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2021-roll-02-202108311800/
> 
> We agreed that:
> - as Konrad says again here we need a new lollipop counter
> - as Rahul points out in his review the min priority is propagated unchanged in DIOs, what I understand Konrad calls GLOBAL
> - as Huimin said on Aug 19th we must define the behavior of the node, which logic to use to increment the minimum priority from the DIO to place in the beacon.
> 
> GLOBAL vs FLEXIBLE was discussed, and I answered Konrad about the FLEXIBLE on Aug. 12th (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/2MaZ4wXLVzJbmLC-LO6c--DsbWQ/)
> I do not see a use case for it, so it looks like overdesign but I'm open to be convinced otherwise

Precisely, we agreed on what I call GLOBAL. In addition, from the 
discussion in my e-mail, there are two additional issues outstanding 
(one was mentioned by Michael). I believe we did not come to a 
conclusion regarding them:

- How do changes to min priority (and OSN) affect DIO Trickle timers? 
[OSN == the lollipop sequence counter]

- How does a (temporal) lack of a preferred parent affect the proxy 
priority of the node in EBs (and in general, the node's behavior)?

Best,
-- 
- Konrad Iwanicki.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roll <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Konrad Iwanicki
>> Sent: lundi 22 novembre 2021 15:55
>> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>; Michael
>> Richardson <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [Roll] enrollment priority
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> As we discussed throughout the mailing list, we also need a sequence number
>> so that correct values of DODAG_Size and min_priority are adopted. This in
>> turn requires putting more information in the draft on the rules of
>> adopting the values. They are explicitly formulated in my earlier e-mail
>> about GLOBAL vs FLEXIBLE.
>>
>> Take care,
>> --
>> - Konrad Iwanicki.
>>
>> On 22/11/2021 15:15, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm trying to edit draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority to reflect the
>>> WG consensus.
>>>
>>> I think that we agreed that the nodes within the DODAG should not
>>> change their enrollment priority.  It can be set by the root in it's
>>> DIO, and it will propogate through the DODAG according to the normal
>> trickle settings.
>>> Changes to the priority will *not*(?!) reset the trickle timer.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/roll-wg/draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority/pull/9
>>> is the pull request I just made, which may be easier to see the changes.
>>>
>>> specifically, I've deleted this line:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/roll-wg/draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority/pull/9/
>>> files#diff-fe544a5ddaac2d404d7b76aa1204d54e36f5eb6618f3f52f0c0dc56dca4
>>> 061faL169
>>>
>>>      The nodes then adjust this base value based upon their observed
>>>      congestion, emitting their adjusted DIO value to their children.
>>>
>>> I actually find that there isn't a lot else to delete.
>>>
>>> I am concerned that I did not understand the WG consensus correctly,
>>> so I am have not yet published this version.
>>>
>>> Do we want to retain the ability for the root to send a value 0-0x7f
>>> into the DODAG, or was it only 0 and 1 that were useful?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting
>> )
>>>              Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>