Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao
Peter van der Stok <stokcons@bbhmail.nl> Fri, 30 August 2019 07:29 UTC
Return-Path: <stokcons@bbhmail.nl>
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 E8A0312018B for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bbhmail.nl
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 NjjCZAoQ8CPl for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0126.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24B9F120130 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB78F180397DB; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:29:48 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bbhmail.nl; h= mime-version:content-type:date:from:to:cc:subject:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:message-id; s=key; bh=xwXI3vxqNISQS4z1QM O22sa/eMg86HR2NM0Z19qRXnY=; b=en504Fnw0ja+bkhvosQEcaUFTpEalQbHA4 DwkQGiS/USiqFwPd5L4nhdz8m/Rwb9zDE2qpUUhm7JtLySWY3RzQs7kq0LyCY6s0 EEqC0vXtUnMCt+EQAh+RXSe3qsqi9sCsL6kH1ZjHHpojfDAO8uZQefkYcVN/iAsc YTcn6o/H0=
X-Session-Marker: 73746F6B636F6E73406262686D61696C2E6E6C
X-Spam-Summary: 2, -10, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, stokcons@bbhmail.nl, :::, RULES_HIT:1:2:41:72:152:355:379:582:599:800:960:962:967:969:973:983:988:989:1152:1189:1208:1212:1221:1260:1313:1314:1345:1359:1431:1436:1437:1516:1517:1518:1575:1588:1589:1592:1594:1730:1776:1792:1801:2068:2069:2198:2199:2525:2526:2527:2528:2553:2559:2564:2682:2685:2692:2693:2859:2895:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3354:3586:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4052:4250:4321:4379:4605:4860:5007:6117:6119:6261:6657:6678:7576:7809:7875:7903:8583:8603:8957:9010:9025:9080:9121:9149:9177:9545:10004:10026:10848:10946:11232:11233:11658:11914:12043:12109:12114:12291:12379:12438:12683:12740:12895:13138:13139:13158:13228:13231:13439:13846:14095:14096:21060:21080:21433:21451:21627:21740:21772:21939:30012:30046:30054:30060:30070:30090, 0, RBL:216.40.42.5:@bbhmail.nl:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.8.55.100 66.201.201.201, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.
X-HE-Tag: farm20_1b69c33666d3b
X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 13922
Received: from mail.bbhmail.nl (imap-ext [216.40.42.5]) (Authenticated sender: webmail@stokcons@bbhmail.nl) by omf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:29:48 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_dc30a83a1e7bca1b8e27bdb967ecb3d7"
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:29:47 +0200
From: Peter van der Stok <stokcons@bbhmail.nl>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DFBB52A@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB3565C4909E1E1327A640D6BDD8BD0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DFBB52A@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Message-ID: <11e99cd92e3b945439fce18557efc18f@bbhmail.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@bbhmail.nl
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.7
X-Originating-IP: [5.206.216.229]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/D3q-nGNlGvjSmaalZ9-cc-qon9U>
Subject: Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao
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: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:29:53 -0000
Hi Authors, It is a bit late to change the approved draft. It is in IANA editing; and you could write to IANA to apologize for a late addition and see how far they are in the process. BUT, worse, how much text is needed to explain this addition? Adding text to an approved document sounds like opening a can of worms to me. Peter Rahul Arvind Jadhav schreef op 2019-08-30 09:03: > The DCO could be initiated for regular route invalidation due to path changes or because of management decision. The status code can help understand the reason for initiating the DCO. I like the idea of this. > > However, I don't know, procedurally, what it means to changing the draft at this stage. > > The changes to draft would include new IANA considerations for the status field. > > FROM: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] ON BEHALF OF Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > SENT: 30 August 2019 14:43 > TO: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org> > SUBJECT: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao > > Dear all ; > > I know it's late but I'd suggest an addition to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao. There's a reserved field in the DCO. > > My suggestion is to use it to transport RPL DAO-ACK status values as defined in RFC 6550. This way we can signal the reason of the DCO to the node. > > This will become significant with the RPL-unaware leaves draft, so we can rebuild a NA(EARO) with a non-zero status based on a DCO. > > Else the RUL draft will have to update efficient NP DAO, which does not look as good. > > Any objection to this? > > Pascal > > 0 1 2 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | RPLInstanceID |K|D| Flags | Reserved | DCOSequence | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | | > > + + > > | | > > + DODAGID(optional) + > > | | > > + + > > | | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Option(s)... > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
- [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-effi… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Rahul Arvind Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Peter van der Stok
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Rahul Arvind Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Peter van der Stok
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-… Ines Robles