IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AkVeUyhXy1hr0vbm6nzO9TlZVRiTV8LGuZFwc94?=
 =?us-ascii?q?YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA9yJ8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTF?=
 =?us-ascii?q?dE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtankiAMRfXlJ/41mwMFNeH4D1YFiB6nA=3D?=
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
CC: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mirja_K=FChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Thread-Topic: Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
Thread-Index: AdUshAoU1ZNXDKIJRSu3/AosXtsQyAAJ73yQ
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 05:53:36 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 05:52:43 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF0BFA2@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF0BFA2@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="_000_BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0BYAPR11MB3558namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 91b65d63-f39b-4451-7f1f-08d6fac3cfea
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Jun 2019 05:53:43.1623 (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: pthubert@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2903
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.27, xch-aln-017.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HFMA4tJoMxwEzypfVa2d7Ej7vc8>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
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, 27 Jun 2019 05:54:04 -0000

--_000_BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0BYAPR11MB3558namp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Rahul

RPL is designed to operate in very different environment, and some LLNs can=
 be very slow, very lossy or even both. This is why RFC 6550 refrains from =
being too specific.
Maybe it is good enough to add text indicating that the values used for DCO=
 are expected to be similar/consistent with those used in DAO?

All the best,

Pascal

From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rahul Arvind Jadhav
Sent: jeudi 27 juin 2019 03:03
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Cc: Mirja K=FChlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Subject: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters

Hello All,


During IESG evaluation of (draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-12) we received =
a comment from Mirja regarding specifying the DCO retry operation in detail=
 if DCO-ACK is not received. Quoting her verbatim, "Please specify a maximu=
m number of retries and also a minimum retry interval (of e.g. 3 sec best w=
ith exponential back-off)!"


Currently the draft says that this is "implementation and deployment depend=
ent".
RFC 6550 also has DAO retries if DAO-ACK is not received but it also does n=
ot specify this operation in detail.

Do you think we can put this explicitly  and does anyone have an opinion on=
 the right way of putting this considering different physical layers with v=
ery different characteristics operating in dense/sparse (wireless) deployme=
nts?

Thanks,
Rahul

--_000_BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0BYAPR11MB3558namp_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:#0563C1;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:#954F72;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
	margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
	{mso-style-priority:34;
	margin-top:0cm;
	margin-right:0cm;
	margin-bottom:0cm;
	margin-left:36.0pt;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
	{mso-style-name:msonormal;
	mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0cm;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0cm;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
	{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"#0563C1" vlink=3D"#954F72">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hello Rahul<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">RPL is designed to operate in very different environ=
ment, and some LLNs can be very slow, very lossy or even both. This is why =
RFC 6550 refrains from being too specific.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Maybe it is good enough to add text indicating that =
the values used for DCO are expected to be similar/consistent with those us=
ed in DAO?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">All the best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Pascal<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm =
0cm 0cm">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Roll &lt;roll-bounces@ietf.org&gt; <b>O=
n Behalf Of </b>
Rahul Arvind Jadhav<br>
<b>Sent:</b> jeudi 27 juin 2019 03:03<br>
<b>To:</b> Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks &lt;roll@ietf.org&gt;<=
br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mirja K=FChlewind &lt;ietf@kuehlewind.net&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hello All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoPlainText">During IESG evaluation of (draft-ietf-roll-effici=
ent-npdao-12) we received a comment from Mirja regarding specifying the DCO=
 retry operation in detail if DCO-ACK is not received. Quoting her verbatim=
, &#8220;Please specify a maximum number
 of retries and also a minimum retry interval (of e.g. 3 sec best with expo=
nential back-off)!&#8221;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoPlainText"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Currently the draft says that this is &#8220;impleme=
ntation and deployment dependent&#8221;.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">RFC 6550 also has DAO retries if DAO-ACK is not rece=
ived but it also does not specify this operation in detail.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Do you think we can put this explicitly&nbsp; and do=
es anyone have an opinion on the right way of putting this considering diff=
erent physical layers with very different characteristics operating in dens=
e/sparse (wireless) deployments?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Rahul<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0BYAPR11MB3558namp_--