Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection

Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl> Wed, 12 May 2021 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl>
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 1964F3A3BF3 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2021 02:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 UctxMaSCi96Q for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2021 02:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mimuw.edu.pl (mail.mimuw.edu.pl [193.0.96.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F74C3A3BF2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2021 02:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duch.mimuw.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690C860373094 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2021 11:56:07 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mimuw.edu.pl
Received: from duch.mimuw.edu.pl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.mimuw.edu.pl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id kThCY2PZP4Ob for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2021 11:56:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:6a0:5001:2:7488:f3e3:c906:59ac] (unknown [IPv6:2001:6a0:5001:2:7488:f3e3:c906:59ac]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by duch.mimuw.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2021 11:56:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl>
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
References: <CAP+sJUfcEY2DNEQV=duJdN6P8zZn0ccuei+4ra-B6TcLb5z8Kg@mail.gmail.com> <49ac5fc3-4a3c-fb87-d366-eb7e7cfd60df@mimuw.edu.pl> <18233.1583176305@localhost> <CAO0Djp3w4vWCOawQ+eegNTRzb_HRGYH6n=bdEH6iVf5ZO0AGFQ@mail.gmail.com> <f71fe153-c0d1-097e-a72e-49ece97cbd48@mimuw.edu.pl> <10272666-28c7-ab3e-9ceb-1b8f2bb6e5e5@mimuw.edu.pl> <CO1PR11MB4881A5AA0E5C5010FD2BE39ED8749@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <bc174171-4b68-40b2-d532-463709e5bea8@mimuw.edu.pl> <CO1PR11MB4881D0C985582B28AE2DE8BED84E9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ab695952-3b11-46ad-f638-622ca770f8e1@mimuw.edu.pl>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <02c7a894-b7a8-8fcb-9119-172a91a3871b@mimuw.edu.pl>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 11:57:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ab695952-3b11-46ad-f638-622ca770f8e1@mimuw.edu.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/CpWII6-MbYJOGcv0iPs3Nj8TI-k>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection
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: Wed, 12 May 2021 09:56:12 -0000

Dear Michael, Pascall, and all,

Hopefully, I have addressed all your previous comments (at least those 
that I knew how to address). The changes are in the GitHub repo. My 
question is:

     What now?

Despite the introductory videos, it is not completely clear to me what 
the next steps should be.

Moreover, before a new version of the draft is produced, if at all, I 
would like to discuss a few issues so that the draft best matches the 
group's practices, both technical and nontechnical:

1. best method for enabling/disabling the protocol
2. simplicity vs. generality and reusability
3. authorship of the draft

Best,
-- 
- Konrad Iwanicki.