Re: [Roll] Agenda for Monday (Re: MOP==7 live discussion )

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 21 September 2020 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
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 109113A0EC2 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 05:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 s78JP1AT7G0C for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 05:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75CDE3A0E6E for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 05:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id e22so12651720edq.6 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 05:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hSsVGKyLIOpe/ew18NT1LNkUELNt2GGwHm2xEKZopUw=; b=gM3HU2ze/E9+I2mQcBpSkmlbq018za9t6wEM6TlzulEWhoWtoC12c7ZNfQyd4nM0aM YiTmohydn8BShZjh3qPIj+lyxL7kLDYkB7r1dD2BfmwLCC0rHAhvkCZocySgu3gWj99n SVj4QJ3S2Vl9bcGM48U/IMAaxDtk84ssXbOmv6UmleKjoPczuibs194z3NzTEbrCVYJ5 yndI0PsmqgpKymPkxyTPdMWjhTwicG1JffjDL8kIdKt5YWOjKOwACrGaQvpRSslxyTJS x/l49A+CS4FK76f8Ro8SkM4/m4053cyQbL4VM2MR5UbBKC5ruhFNOuMoD277rgoUQsIp a3Cw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=hSsVGKyLIOpe/ew18NT1LNkUELNt2GGwHm2xEKZopUw=; b=fzcI9WCvmT4pC3+00q01y/f/Gp1UDBx3aRpSOQI+Gt2JJuaQsCx43SsccDpsR8hZeM Ea/jKCT1zQ9B7+mumOUIE6CI+21oxcu+BypHs/sN1OVwjFV+dx835F1XSs1Xz1qTSWpf BcIHVGXTD3E/KzgVyoW/2A1+5nvQVLcrQTippmoJsJvxbdOFlEkHzVG8XoB6iu4WlZ1Y mmuA0t/pf+axZJmbNKjnIS+IVMEXfSE9brnj7qQqpmrbbbv2CHlECvXVwi+I/Y6O0kCb 8HVI6WPBxpz1hyXud/LH56YZKnTcl331Eoj4PUa0zKXUGrhL80FhK3eXIGr90Jl0So2J SG6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nJytVCT8Ei5hga9OX1eA/cHau1bTrsDuta9nmYoyfdC/RKhkO mPn8+7qA94hDWGSMD8Z9fzQP4RhAvOhGkOalNa8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1cpZzUdqLiL5rB4iYdvy62P7o9lNpmE6ciQq1PYOifX1Evm+hli1R8KQ0Nmu1re5CYWlsAvnw2tAAfbXp3bg=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ca46:: with SMTP id j6mr51621454edt.155.1600692687926; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 05:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 05:51:26 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB355839686C4B2CB0BF17CC21D83A0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <159968972884.1065.3876077471852624744@ietfa.amsl.com> <MN2PR11MB35659A0710E687A7C9995E6ED8270@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200910200744.GE89563@kduck.mit.edu> <17053.1599841430@localhost> <20200911162617.GQ89563@kduck.mit.edu> <8F19C753-DCA0-4A32-BA3B-A124B2F7F745@cisco.com> <MN2PR11MB3565F2602A0DC55DE9FF3604D83F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESswYqh_XdHMkQRCzKrJAdj_iH1DOuz7qy+RFiECUwK6OnQ@mail.gmail.com> <117301.1600480771@dooku> <CAP+sJUcGQQE4WJfJe56p8dGH2_W80KY=5bHsGzQeTOLEazKxXA@mail.gmail.com> <9778D10D-91FE-496B-B679-8A3E8B7B5300@cisco.com> <15752.1600553316@localhost> <5049.1600648267@localhost> <BYAPR11MB355839686C4B2CB0BF17CC21D83A0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 05:51:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESszWt=ttrCU9yEc521juN0zHpTKRJ9XgrkJ_N6q2xNcT5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000efb0505afd24fa1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/EApVwjAZGd0fQP0u08DynbUOTEs>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Agenda for Monday (Re: MOP==7 live discussion )
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: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:51:40 -0000

Hi!

I can’t stay the whole 2 hours…so I want to bash the agenda to add another
question at the top.

() Should the MOP 7 Updates to rfc6550 be part of the turnon,
unaware-leaves, useofrplinfo drafts?  I believe the answer is no, and I
would like to make the case on the call.


BTW, on (3), unaware-leaves says that the RUL is not expected to support
rfc8138.   Not expected is not the same as saying that they never will send
compressed data…

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On September 21, 2020 at 7:22:26 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
pthubert@cisco.com) wrote:

All very good questions, Michael,

And it seems that we are converging.

I read the quasi-suggestion that we align the default for MOP 7 to whether
6LoWPAN HC is running on the medium? Looks good.

I have one last question, how does this discussion impact useofrpl and
unaware-leaves, since they both define flags in the RPL DODAG config
option. Should we converge the language? Do they all update RPL?

Talk to you all in a few hours,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> Sent: lundi 21 septembre 2020 02:31
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>om>; roll@ietf.org; Ines
> Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>om>; Alvaro Retana
> <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
> Subject: Agenda for Monday (Re: MOP==7 live discussion )
>
>
> okay, here is my summary of the issues that are outstanding for
roll-turnon-
> rfc8138.
> I am writing this in the hope that I've captured everything.
>
> 1) Will RFC8138 be enabled for MOP==7? For what media?
> I see that my notion that it should be undefined is not reasonable, and I
> step back from this.
>
> 2) In what way does the format of the DIO Base Object depend upon the MOP
> value? It seems that we need to update 6550 to say something.
>
> 3) While RUL document mandates that RULs must support 8138, it is not
> clear to me if RULs can operate in a pre-8138 network. What if they
> send 8138 compression?
> It may be that none of the compressions that 8138 creates
> will ever be emitted by a RUL, since they are all about IPIP compression
> and RH3 compression, but I haven't checked.
>
> 4) we seem to be fine for 802.15.4 networks of all sorts.
> I suspect that we are okay for all the other layers (BTLE, DECT, BACnet)
> that leverage rfc4944 through the various upgrades. But, we are sure?
> What happens on devices with multiple interfaces of different types?
> Maybe this is an RFC8138 issue really.
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>