From nobody Mon Sep 21 18:13:02 2020 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-reply-to: References: <160071395471.20401.6949662287254386726@ietfa.amsl.com> <195789.1600714786@dooku> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Retana 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: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 01:13:01 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alvaro Retana wrote: >> internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> > A diff from the previous version is available at: >> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41 > Michael: > At first glance the diffs look good to me too. > But I have a question: =C2=A74.3 now reads: "For a MOP value of 7, a = node > SHOULD assume that the RPI 0x23 option is enabled." =C2=A0When is it = ok for > a node to assume that the RPI 0x23 option is not enabled? =C2=A0IOW, = why is > the behavior recommended but not required? =C2=A0It 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. =2D- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEERK+9HEcJHTJ9UqTMlUzhVv38QpAFAl9pT5cACgkQlUzhVv38 QpBFFwf+KlOHAm1PGhof08yqgWKm+GcJM8rc+lb2WoICgedF4HAiwAWmjN0RsciO D5wvvaL3R+dhrnEySU3C/90fBLsFOmsRnjRXvihUbjaucqESx2g4A44i1t+jHK6t MAEh+GLT08diGqzXJA5Ccsp/hgDj50s/bE67eBgmvpf7UtrEVdU3fbiXtLGTvdZ0 t8GZY+DqvtTYzXmfdp2s4ClzwN55JYdDxionWWRmZ2c6BZetO9nheEOOpSebfMkC OJ8IxjAJ/0oL/MLWiO1lxfgHv6mU92b4o8UFTLXcJYTkquRc/KNF50RDy2EtMKN/ N5zed3T4poPc8ZM6Qm0ml46ZvVbcZg== =5dmS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--