Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke <> Wed, 11 November 2020 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174C23A11BB; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:49:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 wVBQJ9VvD-RQ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:49:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C76793A11BA; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:49:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id m13so3995327ioq.9; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:49:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kNY4PNmfP3bKhz/KCVFlhts67iVDwK+dSpf0Yr9GCYc=; b=SDIGXQFnfDpv88Wne2ihdsou02dSPzesVAK36dSUkFwqeA4rcsGcBJ56fPdBgh199G k9OO0ZBuZYwSimzvU1WOrNYMalX95LK7CyhXt0TLM/vUhz/p+FnrTRAJA3uqSgnjv4Yi r4+/8DXPNKb0jvjcu8BJPCecU4svFrejjc438MX4f1FDzVoDUA2j+ssOUPM+DB41nr64 /JGw0uYN6110Gxz4feCdnHIFjc2oi3mkgQBiyj7Y0mai/0Vf6UCiA3+JMpOgI89xYV5a mkoLmea6sXNTCd4wPIFknFnmT6Dgqzx5xyVTFjdob6HErZxL3kLgaCLTklpvojN+cJ/S SBmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kNY4PNmfP3bKhz/KCVFlhts67iVDwK+dSpf0Yr9GCYc=; b=LqZxaYoequHGBgneI6Gw838bzCvyKQZjyI1o2fJULx+flEjAIRkeyV1LgLyjOCMj1Q Y/E23QZSR9wrzpm5COF1RxJsQEWWvj8DGWd8AqxRiheAqGA7Dxaix42SZGE/sGwgjrCz /iD3OODjjObllJFbCpqdJRZXXrSOYbT4qyT3R3aPhDC1OqoHV7pnm/P1UJAYlx9Ix/Ux QuZr6f19GdEcvyS59oVpZ1e2eJjQ6iPtT9jsd0R978KfLdbGjFtGWU+Eiwp2JRBaC7zm Ltxv/OInMFbdQoDQIC84owo4i2Z4Io6p2zdZFPOzXixUB6mNSaVc4nH0i1m4SzVAakSY Nmpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319eEJyigR83oesHjuYjJ8YXpLgkpT9hBls0u20RBiK4O2gZHS9 siBQQPddDbjtsgbw+dcALJ35vtG/QxMLZwK88LY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzOXRrwruq+xmj1sgbz21IHixaHQsZs5fdlysvtqFG+fAXhx/n8FN8HSBLLh4bOwHwVkR0+SILu/L+NQdxWiZ4=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:630b:: with SMTP id p11mr19719077iog.97.1605134961046; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:49:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6978.1605115717@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <6978.1605115717@localhost>
From: Martin Duke <>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:49:10 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>, Benjamin Kaduk <>, Alvaro Retana <>, The IESG <>, "" <>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002b792a05b3dc9bac"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:49:23 -0000

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 9:28 AM Michael Richardson <> wrote:

> Martin Duke <> wrote:
>     > So I guess the value of the MOP 7 behavior is... to recover the bit
> of the
>     > flags? Fine, I suppose, but this would appear to have two costs:
>     > 1) If A is still out there when E deploys, this bit would have been
> useful,
>     > but isn't.
> The whole point is that A and E can't co-exist, BY CONSTRUCTION.
> The same way that IPv6 nodes can't talk to IPv4 directly.
> And we're okay with that, because it's the A/B -> C transition that
> worries us.

I've already lifted the DISCUSS, but I am confused by this response. Yes,
in a perfect world all nodes are upgraded to implement this draft before
anyone ships anything with MOP7.  Is it not accurate that node C could
interop with a MOP7-capable node, because C could be a leaf node? If so,
then if A is still lying around then it can't even be a leaf node because
there's no way for E to run MOP7 without compression.

Maybe it's true that A and B will all be gone, in which case my example is
true but irrelevant.