Re: [Roll] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-40
Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Tue, 08 September 2020 21:12 UTC
Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.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 D601A3A148E; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.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 eAAF0csksluS; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2a]) (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 0C2C63A148B; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com with SMTP id j3so151121vsm.0; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 14:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kE02lw2X9z/MLrgeg9CVLAHB/DaLodwSwRaXYCUOzUs=; b=PNypYL2pMC6wun5OMvzbIvG1OyGjWKKjzD5+clALg4bbAFmdfVf+tx9emRbZeZr8YM LZm6m80RP5SZYc6bSzUQY9lz5RgZrwjS902MOjGPvFGbFVI9B0q3a2wbvdQhLpD5Hdlx W9V+N7xMNCud14YrTvunQGn9Pxto2NJVi9bZa89aCPE2fCKHTbLfogymZZb/7ZKFvoY9 UYSLY4PLp5P3O9pcQbNW7BOvlPsPWwASq7MDp/77kwlq7QW6GI1PuK4quTqqY1Br3Gnv PBqlxYwn4i4zJqo+URPMyGKGktqq4KUrPclUH1PAjyorhClpa1IJjxwxH/5ATFGGHiWG 41Fg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kE02lw2X9z/MLrgeg9CVLAHB/DaLodwSwRaXYCUOzUs=; b=avubekgcxfy8lvUYDif7iq5+N2envWdjvy8pChzoMxFwkO2XOTXCWbnGTDX+6zDAeQ ymGQOM/rGmRcTeVu0bC9Hm2oeis6SRh0UlLclzAJwqCfRVFEbtBwd4kPnmQiO7QeLrY2 ZH/mohiLFpzGLNpcOFxh1TTIx0L/bvlf89JBPS+ivQ+SnqJuNjBee9eWCj3oGv2C8Aky dBaA9YiNBYDM1aJZSk5nxhTB1H6RMyRMUu4Y71gdjXgmmx/vFIvqWOoCtEIDYWwsbHzX 5dELn+/0BYxfDhDPV0v4GhPx19acxOuP0QLK6n37iBd8iug1vWhfrURFYBbOwTpa9rTO Vx/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sngEcLx9nB1JgK6Lp0upCi6AHj3e3Ip+ZxLBIzGwkRHf/Nxcn 2h/jPatwq5aBW0fwRHNksIxZS3UxXzI2XNkTtvMpGCIABS4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUhIAZz+lqmzbv4yWx+b5JbGmv7Wo3hBAUFmW6+zer/SNYu/dx7yZZKfOMzgmPXBOZ6wmAGfP0uB5K1IbtbFw=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ea88:: with SMTP id f8mr718721vso.2.1599599560966; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 14:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159602896040.32219.18351168129491497436@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAP+sJUda2f_cwx7-KDQmAGJn5NNKWTJwev2JkweDZU-=p4TixA@mail.gmail.com> <18354E7B-2F0D-4AF9-96F1-CB87EEF0484D@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <18354E7B-2F0D-4AF9-96F1-CB87EEF0484D@inria.fr>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 00:12:05 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUe9TJdx0HfdiqQTpds38cK56kGji9TTPZdu0WfoZkzDyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
Cc: IETF IoT Directorate <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo.all@ietf.org, roll <roll@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d460305aed3cb2e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HMi75bytJ8wju-4XstpsPjkwwbg>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-40
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: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 21:12:45 -0000
Thank you very much Malisa for confirming. Best, Ines On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:02 PM Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr> wrote: > Hi Ines, > > Thanks for making these changes, they are fine by me. > > Mališa > > On 6 Sep 2020, at 00:38, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Mališa, > > Many many thanks for your review. Please find below comments in-line. > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:22 PM Mališa Vučinić via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Mališa Vučinić >> Review result: Ready with Issues >> >> As part of the IoT-Directorate review process, I went through >> draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-40. In general, I believe the document is >> ready to >> proceed once a couple of issues that I outline below are resolved. >> >> I have concerns whether the use of the normative language is appropriate >> in the >> use cases section. I believe all such cases are covered either in the >> sections >> updating RFC 6553, RFC 6550 and RFC 8138 or in these respective RFCs. >> Please >> consider using lowercase keywords in Section 6. >> > > <Ines> In section 3 times the normative vocabulary is used not specially > oriented to the use cases but to the general behavior. : > > -”The DODAG root MUST force it to zero when passing the packet out to the > Internet. The Internet will therefore not see any SenderRank information” > > -”an intermediate router that needs to add an extension header (e.g. RH3 > or RPL Option) MUST still encapsulate the packet in an (additional) outer > IP header” > > -“The RPI MUST be present in every single RPL data packet.”: in order to > avoid e.g loops > > > In section 7 where the use cases are explained, we have not used normative > language, since they are basically examples. > > What do you think? > > </Ines> > > > >> >> As a minor note, there also appears to be an inconsistent use of the >> IP6-IP6 >> acronym. Please use a single acronym throughout the doc, currently a mix >> of >> IPv6-in-IPv6 and IP6-IP6 is present. >> > > <Ines> > We specify the use of IP6-IP6 in section 2: “Note: Due to lack of space > in some figures (tables) we refer to IPv6-in-IPv6 as IP6-IP6.” > </Ines> > > > >> >> My detailed comments are given below. >> >> Section 1: >> >> > Since some of the uses cases here described, use IPv6-in-IPv6 >> encapsulation. >> It MUST take in consideration, when encapsulation is applied, the RFC6040 >> [RFC6040], which defines how the explicit congestion notification (ECN) >> field >> of the IP header should be constructed on entry to and exit from any >> IPV6-in-IPV6 tunnel. - Please clarify the sentence. Consider whether it is >> appropriate to have a normative MUST here. >> > > <Ines> New text: > Most of the use cases described therein require the use of IPv6-in-IPv6 > packet encapsulation. > When encapsulating and decapsulating packets, RFC 6040 [RFC6040] MUST be > applied to map the setting of the explicit congestion notification (ECN) > field between inner and outer headers. > > The normative is used in order to highlight support of ECN for any > tunnelling solutions. > > What do you think? > > </Ines> > > > >> >> Section 4.2: >> > The non-storing mode case does not require the type change from 0x63 to >> 0x23, >> as the root can always create the right packet. The type change does not >> adversely affect the non-storing case. - It is not clear what RPI option >> type >> should non-storing networks use. A pointer to the discussion in Section >> 4.3 >> would be useful. >> >> <Ines> done </Ines> > > >> Section 4.4: >> >> > A node that is decompressing this header MUST decompress using the RPI >> Option >> Type that is currently active: that is, a choice between 0x23 (new) and >> 0x63 >> (old). The node will know which to use based upon the presence of the >> flag in >> the DODAG Configuration option defined in Section 4.3. E.g. If the >> network is >> in 0x23 mode (by DIO option), then it should be decompressed to 0x23. - >> If my >> understanding is correct, this means that in order to decompress data >> plane >> packets, a node first needs to remember the option type mode the network >> is >> operating in, advertised in DIOs. Consequently, decompression is not >> possible >> before at least one DIO is received. >> >> <Ines> > In order to be able to decompress, the node should support RFC8138. > > The DODAG configuration Option indicates the setting 0x63 or 0x23. > > Note that nodes are not part of the RPL instance indicated in the RPI and > should not generate or forward packets for that instance before they > receive the first DIO. > > In the case of reboot, the node (6LN or 6LR) does not remember the RPI > Option Type (i.e., whether or not the flag is set), so the node will not > trigger DIO messages until a DIO message is received indicating the RPI > value to be used. The node will use the value 0x23 if the network supports > this feature. > > </Ines> > > > >> Section 6: >> >> > The RPI MUST be present in every single RPL data packet. >> - How is the normative text here appropriate at this point? Is this not >> redundant with RFC6553? >> > > <Ines> the use of the MUST is to enforce the explanation of the use case > when the RPI is present . It tends to add clarification to the reader > > As Pascal pointed - RFC 6553 states: “ Datagrams sent between RPL routers > MUST include a RPL Option or RPL Source Route Header ([RFC6554 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554>]) and MAY include both.“ RFC 8138 > requires it at all times for compression. Now we MUST the RPI in all cases, > it is simpler. > > </Ines> > > > >> >> > This document assumes that the LLN is using the no-drop RPI Option Type >> (0x23). - This statement appears twice in the document and is as such >> redundant. please remove one appearance. >> > > <Ines> done </Ines> > >> >> Section 8: >> >> > The root always have to encapuslate on the way down >> - It is not clear how come does root need to always encapsulate on the way >> down. In the basic case of root to RAL communication, IPv6-in-IPv6 is >> marked as >> “No”. Please clarify. >> > > <Ines> Corrected, we have deleted “The root always have to encapuslate > on the way down”</Ines> > >> >> Section 8.1.3: >> >> > When the RPI is added, the RUL, which does not understand the RPI, will >> ignore it (per [RFC8200]); thus, encapsulation is not necessary. - Figure >> 22 >> states that for root to RUL communication IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is >> mandatory which is not consistent with this text. >> >> <Ines> corrected on the table </Ines> > > >> Section 8.2.1: >> >> - A sentence stating how does RAL recognize that the packet is destined >> for the >> Internet would be useful. >> > > <Ines> Added: “Having the RAL information about the RPL domain, it may > encapsulate to the root when the destination is not in the RPL domain of > the RAL.” > </Ines> > > >> Section 8.2.3: >> >> > As RPL headers are added in the RUL packet, the first 6LR (6LR_1) will >> add an >> RPI inside a new IPv6-in-IPv6 header. - this statement makes it sound as >> if RUL >> originates a packet with RPL headers. Please rephrase. >> > > <Ines> As the RUL parent adds RPL headers in the RUL packet, the first > 6LR (6LR_1) will add an RPI inside a new IPv6-in-IPv6 header. > > What do you think? > > </Ines> > >> >> Nits: >> > The ROLL WG analysized how [RFC2460] rules apply to storing and >> non-storing >> use of RPL. - s/analysized/analyzed >> > <Ines> done </Ines> > >> >> > that transports that abstract information in an IPv6 Hob-by-Hop Header. >> - s/hob/hop >> > <Ines> done </Ines> > >> >> > consumed Routing Header and to ignore a HbH header as prescribed by >> - define HbH, assuming Hop-by-Hop >> > <Ines> done </Ines> > >> >> > The root does not removes the RPI1 >> - s/removes/remove >> > <Ines> done </Ines> > >> >> > The 6LR_ia (ia=1) (Node E) >> - s/6LR_ia (ia=1)/6LR_1 >> <Ines> done </Ines> >> > > >> > The root always have to encapuslate on the way down >> - s/have to encapuslate/has to encapsulate >> > <Ines> done </Ines> > >> >> > If the originating node does not not >> - s/does not not/does not >> > <Ines> done </Ines> > >> >> > and add it's own >> - s/it’s/its >> > <Ines> done </Ines> > >> >> > The migration procedure it is triggered when the DIO is sent with the >> flag >> indicating the new RPI Option Type. - s/it is/is >> > <Ines> done </Ines> > >> >> > Namely, it remains at 0x63 until it is sure that the network is capable >> of >> 0x23, then it abruptly change to 0x23. - s/change/changes >> > <Ines> done </Ines> > > Changes are displayed in > https://github.com/roll-wg/useofrplinfo/blob/master/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41.txt > > > Thank you very much again for your useful comments, > > Ines. > > > > >
- [Roll] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-roll-… Mališa Vučinić via Datatracker
- Re: [Roll] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-r… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-r… Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-r… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-r… Mališa Vučinić
- Re: [Roll] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-r… Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-r… Mališa Vučinić
- Re: [Roll] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-r… Ines Robles