Re: [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo
Rahul Jadhav <nyrahul@outlook.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 13:08 UTC
Return-Path: <nyrahul@outlook.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 B20C93A0496 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_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=outlook.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 1dZzQqNamvh4 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092255046.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.255.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 502103A044A for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=faviUNJK4MqAy6gCqKbzvpQQF6ZEeuYhLv18z/ip0ymJ5J7vGoYuiJYcn/YR2/qlZBYCu5X6YB7S9PyGlHQoWNENExuscCKYsGf21YIY7AiUOE2NpYbWD1iKcCpMtlflzacwbNg+vu9j8m+q9myL4qusb8tSXrg+a3ZHdM5Evc7Nvq/3hzIDK2HxnAhahoLu5nhyiPhVx+urrxX66wt6t01sywamGyohKHmrKExTz9Ieh3biNTSqAm6DWX/5lvdyGlW2GIlC2UvzxwLOFT1sbKXtc8fw76rj13tdUbxKR8Zz73emr+U8CmfOcuMG+7D1a8tuBA8XQajLm+3wxsNF+g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;bh=4Qin4BlMUESQ3pTLk4NbU+ifcj4YApjpP+uTV7VYEiw=; b=agCzFgte9fDwny564QaFIiAtwtOD1sIL46m7a7GQWx2JwzRSJdJcKXcwQ/+eMIgBMxHntFajPIHORJJ5/aaq4wamTvWEqSZIk3q+59UB+qxx4Rgo+P/BX4cZN8wwwiK3Z24LY/M97Z+H/rOPrkH5e6L+qNav8aVopZ10RNyAXcHtjj4tGyO5xpN1djpuECGdzQmwIl5xoyjjB4GZ/5KeecH1SsEtOg0ubbyOWUL1r4jr3j9gTSjUQauxlRE3TZHNRZkJLYxfmZ/nQFhl5H7l1aoA0MOaV3go0pL14sXRTbjYLvc6gyTZmv94qCGWCzP/9CQa5ULFUKZrlt8diBT66g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;bh=4Qin4BlMUESQ3pTLk4NbU+ifcj4YApjpP+uTV7VYEiw=; b=T8DK5j5WLm5Bbr2SDUJeMenRfD8ATqXs9HLXAkiXS/kwqaHw2VQd2DGrY25+3Mi4dHjuATYxyOAw+KJy8uIR8o+eXOlCE9UUna32mPM+IVXG/r+Xdia6WkOqwbcWUxSDJkcRD6IbngdmYW6jCfGHVyqZt5pfsG634pnPxGSxTP9YTJV1iVcuxm1WROuo9+58cYOOLPgodOqvM/PWZH5e+IkPw2cgLOkmW4ajlgxO/qMTYO3ajS66bWc9L00mXeXL2bbXJxD3Y1bn2qs5GKvW3AxQtOWLVj7f6X+MuqNaaASyvdRPinIrKf/CQlb5sBB2lcmMPqNBt1kmSLHD/mNJng==
Received: from PU1APC01FT111.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7ebe::35) by PU1APC01HT224.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7ebe::482) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2814.13; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:08:25 +0000
Received: from BM1PR01MB4020.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.152.252.57) by PU1APC01FT111.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.252.236) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2814.13 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:08:25 +0000
Received: from BM1PR01MB4020.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::a1ff:5c53:dc37:c050]) by BM1PR01MB4020.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::a1ff:5c53:dc37:c050%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2793.013; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:08:25 +0000
From: Rahul Jadhav <nyrahul@outlook.com>
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo
Thread-Index: AQHV+EeGEJooQrZVX0uiNICkr0YrU6hE04GAgAAY+KQ=
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:08:25 +0000
Message-ID: <BM1PR01MB4020B32E9AC2BD7FBBCAE776A9FD0@BM1PR01MB4020.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <BM1PR01MB4020DDE62CBD04217E48C180A9FD0@BM1PR01MB4020.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>, <CAP+sJUcy2ituaRhg1Cbq06gYbqSLaQHqhDuF-YNRVAELovVxMg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUcy2ituaRhg1Cbq06gYbqSLaQHqhDuF-YNRVAELovVxMg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-IN, en-US
Content-Language: en-IN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:B9B940A9E6D882673FAF4B0993BF74106AE150A21C371869FC9AD68E48865095; UpperCasedChecksum:C8AA1FFA65E2C28CA7FC6383C3563670A79708F7197E051AFE1EFC5C51BD14E4; SizeAsReceived:7007; Count:44
x-tmn: [P0Kc13W5e3uI4UTafryQkiq49EEi7mqG]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 44
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f3745723-668d-4f73-4330-08d7c68672e3
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: PU1APC01HT224:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: HfAUj5jSGFv0oDlGulhjSa5lIl1/H4+vDqqEyPu89Okqm76hzAUPHpk+CR1LTQ2DfXuXfv8cCpqg6dBF3ZKYUruCnT+uE8e82DGnytwVjx7rwGpQ90tNrlH13uF9etPIgwDZW4P/zTjoz3DsISgODIcQkpCDG8+f7H5cFoL3kRtkNh1arMuCSQsba4hJO7CPBqndNfHFSSP2CKISb3BAgnnTT3PEjQ3bbIK8SXnetGs=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: VjK7tBILsfl1rg3+9jGylDlA9I+2XVjsobsbZibqW9VNEJ30ubCm11ZJ90RuuYrYL/zdjOEFVxqWlTgnVJVAV34UCb+2oXSuoeQL/WTt4YDi0nMxSWP4HS9ecaLp7d1OdphPuNvUn4NqpapX97/QKw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BM1PR01MB4020B32E9AC2BD7FBBCAE776A9FD0BM1PR01MB4020INDP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f3745723-668d-4f73-4330-08d7c68672e3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Mar 2020 13:08:25.0808 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PU1APC01HT224
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/dchYwggXKn-SNfEgDhHIniLom4g>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:08:33 -0000
Thanks Ines. The updated text is more clear and in sync with other text in the section. Please find my resp inline. Best, Rahul [IR] Thank you, we could delete the para if people/other coauthors agree. But in case that we want to specify the case on rebooting, would it the following make sense? "In the case of rebooting, the node (6LN or 6LR) does not remember the RPI Option Type (i.e., whether or not the flag is set), so the node will not trigger DIO messages until a DIO message is received indicating the RPI value to be used. The node will use the value 0x23 if the network supports this feature." [RJ] Yes this para is more clear for me. Thanks. Regarding the terminology: The draft terms, the new option type as "RPI Option Type" (value 0x23) and the old "RPL Option Type" (value 0x63). Is this correct? [IR] we define RPI here as follows: RPL Packet Information (RPI): The abstract information that [RFC6550<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6550>] places in IP packets. The term is commonly used, including in this document, to refer to the RPL Option [RFC6553<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6553>] that transports that abstract information in an IPv6 Hob-by-Hop Header Yes, with RPI Option Type we refer to the RPL Option described in 6553 [RJ] Great! Please also check the PR I raised on GitHub and use the changes if it makes sense.
- [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo Ines Robles