IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 22 September 2020 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 E084F3A0F9E for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.835
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 axLWnGxSbkaN for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (minerva.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 862533A0F9D for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (CPE788a207f397a-CMbc4dfb96bb50.sdns.net.rogers.com [174.116.121.43]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ED4C1F450 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 01:12:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id ECCC11A01AF; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 21:12:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAMMESszM7vbqsXcvB9vWTM6GdaeFa+=M6oQTkzoJRWbSSL4-fw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <160071395471.20401.6949662287254386726@ietfa.amsl.com> <195789.1600714786@dooku> <CAMMESszM7vbqsXcvB9vWTM6GdaeFa+=M6oQTkzoJRWbSSL4-fw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> message dated "Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:46:28 -0700."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 21:12:55 -0400
Message-ID: <205580.1600737175@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/8XnBzm9WKbiwQpmL_iNXYYot5L8>
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41.txt
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: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 01:13:01 -0000

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
    >> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
    >> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41


    > Michael:

    > At first glance the diffs look good to me too.

    > But I have a question: §4.3 now reads: "For a MOP value of 7, a	node
    > SHOULD assume that the RPI 0x23 option is enabled."  When is it ok for
    > a node to assume that the RPI 0x23 option is not enabled?  IOW, why is
    > the behavior recommended but not required?  It seems to me that the
    > behavior may not be consistent.

I always like to hedge my bet with SHOULD rather than MUST :-)

I can imagine:
  1) local configuration says use 0x63.
  2) some heuristic that says, if you receive 0x63, you send 0x63.

But, I am okay with changing that to MUST.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email