Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 12 December 2019 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 B8E291200C7 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 01:06:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=O0Fz2GD5; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=ezLkrW0N
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 BwWjKJR4-lkb for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 01:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B2AC120878 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 01:06:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11690; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1576141602; x=1577351202; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=dIPu2CtirRL+pQMlbx8YkrmgCrTwxG4O5BBXsxc0G/o=; b=O0Fz2GD5VS3XFdICtUPUMv6TZ+ad0bdxTCH8y/r6bXAtL6SqZYuMcztl hjpGMb2grSU/tr7OxSuX2kP8B//uv+9ilu5J44FEyhc+3vIsgG9mVqMif Ma3b4euOUpdyfzH1zOh7bj1+Os17146LqiPf5krE71X+SdQ0SDjjEeZ75 Y=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AIpXKjh0cEO8774FLsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44?= =?us-ascii?q?YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxKGt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8RVgOIdJSw?= =?us-ascii?q?dDjMwXmwI6B8vQEVH7MfTndTASF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C9DAAoAvJd/5xdJa1lHAEBAQEBBwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BEQEEBAEBgX6BHC9QBWxYIAQLKoQDg0YDiwhOghGTJIRiglIDVAkBAQEMAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?tAgEBhEACF4FzJDgTAgMNAQEEAQEBAgEFBG2FNwyFXgEBAQEDEhEKEwEBOA8?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQgRBAEBKwICAjAdCAEBBBMIGoMBgXlNAy4BAqIYAoE4iGF1gTKCfgEBBYU?= =?us-ascii?q?GGIIXCYE2hRyGfBqBQT+BEUeCTD6ELR6DDjKCLJAuhVSYcQqCMJYUmkGpCAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EAgQFAg4BAQWBaSKBWHAVgydQERSQIINzilN0gSiOfQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,305,1571702400"; d="scan'208,217";a="381094725"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 12 Dec 2019 09:06:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBC96eEN030181 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:06:40 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:06:40 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:06:39 -0500
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:06:39 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=aE1RQUNBXwimapR6xIDXGHoq+zeBbUg5asr76e/AoRtR0OgEtoB+/Pn0rmxKZIYBckVbiLoCq7i+31SUW+oq6lXdJw/ssbWiRk4LxyA1aM8zJruE6Hbx7rYxU7Wi8GVi4NfH4dAIg/P2kP+gVhpRH9RZaHO+i2YlLyAGNmvgFzBPM5ZACzgoJa+rRjvJUQtgNdFrCnaw0GMJcA301XnDBkOIICWnfYB/TYvTjibjl5UP5EzLsHZoYMw5dSRGi+XlhERylR2oD7p+3zshTKIwN5CwhKFt8uUZ21j5ALQL37OMfaYm7zdWDJy9CrD20FzACs/C6/BE9/17v4Uh+2jTeQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=dIPu2CtirRL+pQMlbx8YkrmgCrTwxG4O5BBXsxc0G/o=; b=YeLcHLVedjcZnZmr7FVxTl4v6L6PSGxiX78NXM+w/UAVSb+v1m5aHVNXZGAlgSzIiWZ2Sj3jP6HW6XxVQTTltHYHy7vIte41gnfXWwSpDC/o9QGS1nWR5QG/jPr6mF5vsmDZhGzFHBVEr7VTRFPzZBucU2nkSCeUPcSPySTbBSmxnOybfKZpk/wif0h834KaJ3YQm7XNXdORSwPKCO8cv66HGfouvyvZrCXkm8uZuKx7E1AdTS2eo63bvQ1P1aRzfpxxg9CG5syCboZQ1u2IW9Xu/Xi0RekWnaMhmg1wgEMSj/0pGluGkRIGXSxEbBaHv8TQs2SptQJ/LDa9d9EsAg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=dIPu2CtirRL+pQMlbx8YkrmgCrTwxG4O5BBXsxc0G/o=; b=ezLkrW0N91dykMPQViVpgYdL5De7XERR0xMuCymS5cXJZ/Idc4ZDPQZCLT/ovZ+TFYrjdje4kceWEhiWd/sydyXmtuMPKk5z/LGg1/o7o3qU2WN+NLm4IoULzhtp9ieGO8Vp/+Ve6XiEajaY1b6d0tYJUU4wDLH/P7XqfBgt7B4=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB4365.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2516.17; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:06:38 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3037:66f1:dc79:b564]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3037:66f1:dc79:b564%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2538.016; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:06:38 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits
Thread-Index: AdWwJRvZ7XmAp6+3QFWzwer5FCoQUgAZCMSAABBKlaA=
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:06:35 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:06:21 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB35655C63E921ACDB440B1EAED8550@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB3565E131BDE051D0AD920F84D85A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAO0Djp1UW+hmvN0FE7c+GW2jqdwrGVJ-1JPXE4WBQH=MgVUXVA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp1UW+hmvN0FE7c+GW2jqdwrGVJ-1JPXE4WBQH=MgVUXVA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2a01:cb1d:4df:6600:3cca:13de:1f:eca8]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 289c9f66-8509-4773-9469-08d77ee29890
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4365:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB43654FCB7D98397A721FEC4CD8550@MN2PR11MB4365.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0249EFCB0B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(346002)(396003)(189003)(199004)(186003)(33656002)(6916009)(478600001)(2906002)(53546011)(6506007)(316002)(55016002)(9686003)(76116006)(66556008)(64756008)(66946007)(81166006)(8676002)(71200400001)(6666004)(81156014)(8936002)(66446008)(86362001)(7696005)(52536014)(66476007)(5660300002)(66574012); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4365; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: /6eqzFHFwXFVZW2IX7znYlgUMEzk2pxVrTqhUu9PnGkyEv6TM8LAOh0xkly2enD5uchqe5g+y7gfTIB9EPS5MmhJ+H94ghcFzFu4OjfT7wPVgPMf8o5ksmK/nw6Y+pplBNhJo/sfn5joJdYQdDDNXRpMSvjKDn6MS8gUPxRgBGIWRoZ4uXd+KjPpHgFly6yMjBge2lFftLSgD/cbgAat6TR61YnRA8uFPDoauTvZh4WzPC//KVXubiz4UD15yPG9GdTc8AoOZxgDbMeMnBQzWSmr67VS3/7CTQDeW0c2HEISIrQfHlkuEZcpfjOYIJx6uuJrYvizws4yGhOG0sNbJ+JXIEJJXmFNECh7J+01raQBrUxxS3i2eAqd6aeWE4zC4RSSoPntP+/jNjB8KmmjkcuGJ48TWLhYduye0SzmSBJN0NYcWpzq3R6tvboogkzG
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB35655C63E921ACDB440B1EAED8550MN2PR11MB3565namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 289c9f66-8509-4773-9469-08d77ee29890
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Dec 2019 09:06:38.1656 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: TNYgdkm44G4IrCz8LR6glzeGTKgqHET82o9fdVdT5uA3qSSnve50CR03OpBV+Tkj0zy1Brsa7FwzHNlXtec3Bg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4365
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.18, xch-aln-008.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/EXvOVQ_Xcw_Aip2Op9SWa_5RhV4>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:06:45 -0000

Hello Rahul

> [RJ] I am inline with these points. I would like to confirm a point here... Reclaiming the turnon-8138 flag in MOP>=7 would mean that 8138 is _mandatorily_ supported in the nodes above MOP>=7 such that they no more depend on this flag. This in itself is a bigger decision! Is my understanding correct? While the advantages of 8138 are obvious in non-storing MOP case, they are less impacting/obvious in storing MOP case.

We have to discuss that, let’s start a thread. Same goes for the RPI HbH-H option value. But neither turnon nor useofrplinfo should make any assumption on what happens for MOP values >= 7. It is up to the drafts specifying MOP values >= 7 to decide. IMHO MOPext would be the place to write text if we make RFC 8138 support mandatory for RPLv2.

All the best,

Pascal


From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Rahul Jadhav
Sent: jeudi 12 décembre 2019 02:13
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits


The proposal on the table was:
- change turnon-rfc8138 to say that the configuration bit only applies to MOP < 7 (RPL v1)
- use-of-rpl-info is edited to say the same thing
- we create a IANA registry with a MOP column so the bits depend on the MOP. MOPext could be the place for introducing this registry.

I’d like to check if the ML is in line with this approach.

[RJ] I am inline with these points.
I would like to confirm a point here... Reclaiming the turnon-8138 flag in MOP>=7 would mean that 8138 is _mandatorily_ supported in the nodes above MOP>=7 such that they no more depend on this flag. This in itself is a bigger decision! Is my understanding correct? While the advantages of 8138 are obvious in non-storing MOP case, they are less impacting/obvious in storing MOP case.