Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status

[Rahul Jadhav <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal, Alvaro,

I am mostly clear on the changes required. Please find attached an
HTML-diff for the suggested changes.
The only concern for me was if we remove the registry where would the
Status 1 indicating "No routing-entry for the indicated Target found".
But I see that unaware-leaves has made an update to its IANA section
to include this status. So it works.
Thus, I am referencing unaware-leaves for Status values.

Regards,
Rahul

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 14:44, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hello Rahul:
>
>
>
> Attracting your attention on the particular point below in Alvaro’s AD review of unaware leaves:
>
>
>
> > > So we should update the NPDAO draft and remove that entry shouldn't we?
>
> > > Note that NPDAO is already in missref because of this draft
>
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C310
>
> >
>
> > Yes.
>
> >
>
> > Also, the specification of the DAO-ACK needs to be changed to at least make it
>
> > clear that the "DCO-ACK Status" field refers to the "RPL Status".
>
> >
>
> > About deprecating the registry...  We should ask IANA what to do: they already
>
> > created the registry, but the efficient-npdao hasn't been published as an
>
> > RFC.  I don't know if we just delete §6.2 or if we have to formally deprecate the
>
> > registry (possible in this document).
>
> >
>
> > Please ack to this to make sure we're in sync before asking IANA.
>
>
>
> The change Alvaro and I want to make in the efficient npdao draft is that the DCO status is now of the same type as the RPL status in DAO ACK, and should be specified as such in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18#section-4.3.4
>
> Which means that we do not need the registry that we ask for in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18#page-17
>
>
>
> Do you agree?
>
>
>
> Keep safe!
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>