Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-26: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

FWIW, I don’t have a problem with listing all as references in the
registry.  We just need to remember to do it if there’s another draft that
does something similar, which we probably will when we go back to look at
the registry.


To do it can be as simple as requesting IANA to add additional references
to MOP 7 in the registry.

Alvaro.

On December 17, 2020 at 2:48:41 PM, Michael Richardson (
[e-mail]) wrote:


About how to mark MOP=7

Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=[e-mail]> wrote:
> I have (plenty of) coffee, it's early afternoon, I had (almost) no red
> wine at lunch... I'm ready for your review comments : ) : )

I'm thinking that there is a market for caffeinated red wine.
Maybe that's already covered by Redbull+Vodka for some.

bk> I still feel that if we're going to incrementally add new properties to
MOP 7, we
bk> should list the relevant documents as references in the registry until
MOP 7 is
bk> fully specified. In this case we can arguably get away with not doing
so since this
bk> document Updates: RFC 6550 already and thus could be said to be doing
the
bk> reservation by modification of the core protocol, but we are not using
that
bk> procedure universally (e.g., for turnon-rfc8138) and it seems prudent
to use a
bk> consistent mechanism.

> Yes, we have a github page for that, see
> https://github.com/roll-wg/RPLv2; I added your concern above in there.

But, Ben is suggested that turnon-rfc8138, unaware-leaves and useofrpinfo
should all be listed under IANA MOP=7 until we actually publish RFC6550
and/or mopex/capex.

Ben, I hadn't thought of that, and I like it.
How do we do this?