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

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 21:27 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 31FAB3A101A; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 zOlScbEhMvMt; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) (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 81A7D3A1018; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id i26so689317ejb.12; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:27:04 -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 :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/I4bbv8M/aDwzVVwZfnOnb3NH/cxjTO9aQSkDIuuXdw=; b=uw/+EYrv76+WyFUSKB1pUC+y0bayMNBwToszxQbBK82RwZV+FQOOY0qrJchOJSwp4B VBOC1DeA4UCPrEIM2w0xyOb0glDED7lk+W2v0MqqN5Mwnzi7mK4UxHLl8q65CYOSWJhU 9UXOOddw7Sqi+YAF78Nhoksg22hu/ymQNsFTtNZXUWAENvVnMrVnkM03akDI0CmCH636 v5GcAE89/nvYY0i95984QYbDvHp3SSl0Im4KkJWAA0GHzt0UL3GnXUXqgaLppvstI4RH vopBoiqnvRVPBpkisr7BNiSISuzN96vhUTo689UNfqHz1VlJK8nSjsGvcQFqVIeT6+35 urmA==
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:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/I4bbv8M/aDwzVVwZfnOnb3NH/cxjTO9aQSkDIuuXdw=; b=MdKbvTFtdl8FQz2DJY3umtjDC2X8Ig+s5ZhA1opPnQOdXy34EJnJGR0/CQBvNqfTx0 Zz7MqvWkA9lnLK8rv2NidFA53ViUbJ6hu55tL0UDewCNDrl/+Tb07odNoyRJjNSScO0a HHaz4ZxNa+U2Wz3g4SMUC+BTR4P8o7FnQQIc1gq7fRLYr1PpOmYr+CGJdjDtblj755GB 2gZsRJzxYZseLRvZoNKWNgs5TcQIOpuvB0aur7BPVWq4lZOHwHm3yrrCS595aoiizeA5 wc9MfOG/KfvxVJvg0958o5QfPhl2V4X55qHODNWFVGr79D8tzaZU7NU1QTNRBDLV86oy 8RAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335T971xWZY4D8SgUql4PYIpOBAuSIpY/QeJ2fqYUwq4HAzlNNV otzk/c0yW/r7TaVC6HHUFIHNPFme2gOjBYerwaU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyklb/HWDastvWYwCXVMXKZQD19Eo7csRKY26Vl6eyDiwWQgZ5/a7f+t5hUjpXVR0A+LbCYSQnE5CWNdPkG1lA=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:8c1:: with SMTP id o1mr102208eje.478.1599082022831; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:27:01 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D775F810-6962-43AC-8CB5-DDAC25E19D87@cisco.com>
References: <159906767077.10518.17525113825721227844@ietfa.amsl.com> <23816.1599076306@localhost> <D775F810-6962-43AC-8CB5-DDAC25E19D87@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:27:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESsypLvWxO4FpZcYwyeGquVwT+voJ=GOEi5xE6ZWU5SkOsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org>, "roll-chairs@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/H0I0z0eSIVyqcMMyNgzHwKwSyRY>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 21:27:06 -0000

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.