Re: [Roll] [draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension] Section realignment - feedback request

<> Tue, 25 February 2020 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAAD13A07B5 for <>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 01:54:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.797
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.797 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 ynqttBzFLuZQ for <>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 01:54:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E92253A07B2 for <>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 01:54:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48RZ6932qsz5wDM; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:54:41 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1582624481; bh=CX2KWThDLt4A2nC/XEPpNL77k7oQwSnhwAxmmT2CwfQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=MSKc+WCCSe/wW7zaE+wRppwBmIHauEZdncscdKSclJNuQXH/VWH+eDzuq2pQI/iUt WdDhi8WostMnaFDU2rC2x5pVwl3+WZGVevsoB4krgOd0cux5S3e8+bIk518m44+/+x GJr0+aPt2TDVboicIDpQgYnjAOYREGx4tZLm86Ge0wG6TV+h0cMOk+UidrG5aTfDOX zCCe3coV+d0GXETLqM0CAKS8/jh1oZazbNUD5nZ+x9ovf8ww6eIOfTMhfmSvzMoLn7 oSC7u0bEonlYoOMD9ybh//XCkYInKR0jWcY2YAT0tviTQxzgPAMTEM5s/Av+RY9Vol DMi4bActDVSnA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.79]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48RZ691Xpzz1xnY; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:54:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCAUBM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d42b:2e80:86c2:5905]) by OPEXCAUBM6E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:54:40 +0100
To: Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <>, "Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" <>
CC: INES ROBLES <>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>, roll <>
Thread-Topic: [draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension] Section realignment - feedback request
Thread-Index: AQHV68GYjPtc0tYJpkyeFH2FZXKUbQ==
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 09:54:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DA7AAA3770EEFdominiquebarthelorangecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension] Section realignment - feedback request
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, 25 Feb 2020 09:54:46 -0000

Hello Aris, all,

Thanks for asking.
I've just reviewed version –06 of the draft, before reading the details of the email below.
It turns out that I was not shocked by the current ordering of sections. Probably because I'm already familiar with the topic.
However, at minimum, a forward reference to Sections 3.1-3.3 would be highly useful to newcomers to the draft. Probably right after "There are multiple alternative methods of selecting the AP node."
Reading the details of the email below and thinking about it, I believe that bringing sections 3.1-3.4 forward in the document, before Section 3 "Common Ancestor Objective Function", as Rahul suggests, would make even more sense.
Just be careful to call the CA-Strict, CA-Medium and CA-Relaxed things "methods" or "algorithm", not OF. Leave the "OF" term to the actual definition (as updates to MRHOF), and refer to the "algorithms" in the OF definition.
This is my personal opinion as a member of the WG.
More comments on the draft to come in a separate email.
Best regards,


De : Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <<>>
Date : Monday 10 February 2020 15:56
À : "<>" <<>>, Dominique Barthel <<>>, Pascal Thubert <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Cc : "Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" <<>>
Objet : [draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension] Section realignment - feedback request

Dear Ines, Dominique, Pascal, and all,

After discussing and amending the draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension draft with feedback from Rahul, a few points still remain which we would like some additional feedback on.

I copy the relevant discussion below:

[RJ] Section realignment
It is better to explain CA Strict/Medium/Relax policies before explaining the
CAOF because as a reader one needs to be familiar with these policies before
understanding the OF.

[AK] Thank you for this comment. We had a similar concern as well.
We are not sure what is best.
As the text is current structured, we introduce the CAOF first, mentioning that different policies are possible and that a selection from the parent set must be made.
We then describe the CAOF in terms of differences from/additions to MRHOF.
And finally we describe the policies.
To my mind, the policies are concrete, but they are also just examples, so someone can devise different ones.
In that sense the CAOF is more "fixed" and the policies are more flexible. Thus it makes sense to describe the CAOF first.

We are very open to changing the order, but we would like to have some additional feedback that the order is problematic as it stands now.
We would like to hear any suggestions from the group on this topic.

[RJ] Ok, lets wait for feedback. I, for one, would like to see
policies explained first and then an OF using them. I find this the
only logical way.

[RJ] Rahul Jadhav
[AR] Aris Koutsiamanis

Thank you very much in advance.



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.