Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)

Hello folks,

I think it would be just fine to use the value of 4 for the MOP. Are 
there other changes, besides those noted below, that are needed to be 
made before issuing a new revision for the draft?

Naturally Yours,
Charlie P.

On 10/8/2021 7:30 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Yes, we do need to hear from the authors, who’ll need to eventually 
> make any needed changes.
>
> If we’re moving forward with using MOP 4, then this is what we would 
> need (at least):
>
> - IANA Considerations: request to add aodv-rpl as a reference in the 
> registry.
>
> - A new section that talks about how the reuse is ok, and any 
> consequences of overlapping.  A requirement to not use both variations 
> in the same network would be fine too.
>
>
> I will rely on the Chairs to decide if the discussion is enough to 
> reach consensus on the path forward.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On October 8, 2021 at 8:08:09 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) 
> (pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>) wrote:
>
>> Hello Alvaro:
>>
>> I read from the parallel thread that sharing MOP 4 between the 2 
>> reactive versions of RPL would be OK.
>>
>> I did not see a response from the authors so I’m cc’ing the draft 
>> .all list just in case.
>>
>> We do not need to deprecate P2P RPL as long as it is never present in 
>> the same network as AODV RPL.
>>
>> Maybe a  sentence in AODV RPL about that in the IANA section would help?
>>
>> Keep safe;
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>> *From:* Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>>
>> *Sent:* mercredi 6 octobre 2021 12:59
>> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com 
>> <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>>
>> *Cc:* Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org 
>> <mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)
>>
>> [Added the draft name to the subject to benefit my filters. ;-) ]
>>
>> Pascal:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I asked the same question (about aodv-rpl replacing/obsoleting 
>> rfc6997) when I did my review [1] — more than two years ago!  But 
>> sadly received no real reply from the WG — so we moved ahead with the 
>> document as it is now.  Peter brought the question back in his IoT 
>> DIT review [2] earlier this year, but again no discussion from the WG.
>>
>> It is clear to see that aodv-rpl uses some of the technology from 
>> rfc6997 and, as I understand it, a deployment would never include 
>> both. The question then is valid and I would love to see more 
>> interest this time around.
>>
>> Just FYI — there would need to be some process behind a move to 
>> formally replace rfc6997 (beyond updating the draft).  We can deal 
>> with that if we need to.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/XXaPFyhqiUS_bpYSJT45UaLyeec/ 
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/XXaPFyhqiUS_bpYSJT45UaLyeec/> 
>>
>>
>> [2] 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/f2GUlTDX4ppY1GKjQFqS8930ZYI/ 
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/f2GUlTDX4ppY1GKjQFqS8930ZYI/> 
>>
>>
>> On October 6, 2021 at 2:29:30 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) 
>> (pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org 
>> <mailto:pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>) wrote:
>>
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     RPL AODV is close to completion, congrats to the authors!
>>
>>     Now, there’s the question of the MOP and 2 options, reuse the
>>     experimental one for P2P RPL, or take another.
>>
>>     Right now, the draft takes 5 and P2P has 4
>>     (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#mop
>>     <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#mop>)
>>
>>     My observation is that P2P is the experiment that leads to AODV,
>>     so AODV should deprecate it.
>>
>>     I have not heard of real deployments, and if that happened, I do
>>     not expect a mix of devices that would create confusion.
>>
>>     So would that be OK to assign MOP 4 to RPL AODV?
>>
>>     Note that we only have up to 6 to play with, and the multicast
>>     and anycast supports are already on the cooking table.
>>
>>     Keep safe,
>>
>>     Pascal
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Roll mailing list
>>     Roll@ietf.org <mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>
>>