Re: [Roll] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

Regardless of any future work, this document doesn’t define a new MOP.

Maybe what needs to be slightly clarified is this text from §3:

   Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in
   the DIO Base Object.  This specification applies to MOP values 0 to
   6.  For a MOP value of 7, the compression MUST be used by default
   regardless of the setting of the "T" flag.

The specification does apply to all MOPs in that it is specifying what to do.

NEW>
   Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in the
   DIO Base Object.  This behavior specified in this document applies to MOP
   values 0 to 6.  For a MOP value of 7, the compression MUST be used by
   default regardless of the setting of the "T" flag.


Alvaro.


On September 2, 2020 at 4:34:40 PM, Pascal Thubert wrote:

> Hello Martin
>
> Code point 7 is not defined and éthique doc does not define it. The
> intention and WIP draft is that the value 7 will signal RPLv2, and that the
> support of RFC 8138 will be mandated at that point. The mop itself will be
> signaled in an extension, more in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-mopex-cap. The text here is to
> prepare the current implementation so that it behaves correctly in the
> presence of RPLv2.
>
> Does that answer the discuss?
>
> Pascal
>
> > Le 2 sept. 2020 à 21:52, Michael Richardson a écrit :
> >
> > Martin Duke via Datatracker wrote:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > Now that I know that an IANA registry exists for MOP, codepoint 7
> > > should be included in the IANA considerations for the "Mode of
> > > Operation" Registry.