From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAO0Djp3znJS46yajP0Rq+UKxMw=jvGoujmu3XSLSDLA8MPXbMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB3565C994E6D7B60E58711BA3D84C0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAO0Djp3znJS46yajP0Rq+UKxMw=jvGoujmu3XSLSDLA8MPXbMA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
 message dated "Tue, 19 Nov 2019 17:06:22 +0800."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
 micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:14:53 +0800
Message-ID: <10088.1574230493@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/80tgASCJrSDopM2KW_800W3GSB4>
Subject: Re: [Roll] MOP 7
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    Pascal> Yesterday we said that if MOP is 7 then the MOPext is expected
    Pascal> else the packet is dropped. An alternate could be to say that if
    Pascal> MOP is 7 in the DIO and the MOPext is not present then the MOP =
is
    Pascal> non-storing, since this is the most widely used mode in constra=
ined networks.=20

    > [RJ] The advantage, I assume, is that not having MOPex will save bytes
    > in the DIO for the common case. This would result in three
    > representations for non-storing MOP:
    > a. base MOP =3D 1 ... RPLv1
    > b. base MOP =3D 7 ... without MOPex ... RPLv2
    > c. base MOP =3D 7 ... MOPex =3D 7 ... RPLv2
    > For the sake of simplicity, I would prefer to mandatorily use MOPex if
    > MOP=3D7. Simplicity I refer to is, Base MOP =3D 7 would mean, go check
    > MOPex value.

I agree.

    Pascal> We also said that a MOP of 7 means RPLv2, which packages new
    Pascal> support we are defining. Q is what=E2=80=99s mandatory and what=
=E2=80=99s
    Pascal> optional.

I think that we are working on MOPex because we are concerned about running
out, and we want to establish the rules for extending things early on.

But, I don't think that we need to rush to defining "RPLv2": which I think
would imply that CAP would provide the useful info.

=2D-=20
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh network=
s [=20
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect=
  [=20
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails  =
  [=20
=09


--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEERK+9HEcJHTJ9UqTMlUzhVv38QpAFAl3U2d0ACgkQlUzhVv38
QpD3oQf9H1fGMuz6xAafLXtTSQUlgXnZfHUKFbxPYu7jP0RkHKz5vdUSn5k7tiKn
a2vxD8z+CUiUSF1m6h2aZkvjsHchsN7UL6pq7KVl7tz7RbCDuQzXqFEMtwXTI8zH
rUyQYxKDPYjiJQ0F6R1oD9khMKSgifuuJle/YyII8OQfQvTP/xt8Qgod9X715cri
HIZ6yQ+sDwsHa78NIVP8wNRMmrxS7Q0Bdej54qoTbjaIWuRfg73CdkvV/r/DG3Pk
KF7AdYG9k1vBxvex932cvYAY4PGxc+gmB1Dx/Rih6GkyB78aedHFi3F2AfcUj6mN
p1KogajgJj27KwTu5DtLHxzE/hFfOw==
=6pxQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--