IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] IOTdir Review of draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-19

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 22 September 2021 14:48 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 86B743A251A; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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] 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 lUnqwsglhmgi; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (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 C0DD23A1801; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id c21so10802107edj.0; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J/AkY129YofPdr8oFt72aTf3Ttm981rRfABftsPfRHU=; b=nqUGDWIgUD85E07Z6rXhpF/l6DpvcUoug2FC36Jg/FxhTgNRxjRwi1hoj7uxN2ducG UHioQrZ5NWPw6xFKSC3SSqnrBDtNpq8jNzYq5iZSlL/+glbzWU9xIWe3M8vldP9dvhu5 ClVx+7Z3qTmlxup5p38YJLBWeVlK73jtFYKuP4dGrfN3tQZ0WKVXzGjI57PHzQEe2tmX bnnSyNMTzT/AayXYnJhrqZGqV4gBe2SFxzdug8z7f0OYXOiOFgblSjWtlJBJ4UrwsSag 1KttAD19vxRL6XUTWOtAP2I6OYTL4p57ObXLkwIo4pMP8uLX4bHHocNFAW43Uzx41pYX LqTA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J/AkY129YofPdr8oFt72aTf3Ttm981rRfABftsPfRHU=; b=R+ZHwDhXFwxCFhL7yCqpcNyaDCOKeBX11ObNHgPiPpkBlqM2mxiiJd6U2tnsqCnY8D qaBzvrVfMMLCiw5PHldXfnV7hO8U9YYhggVirjJRUu3lJyaiURPwNcwV/8JP2KwX4NDo yK84r8iG47DvPqt2y5KDjHhGM8q/ORyk5Z9QoxI7IsRnEn/bUL5Kkl5ch/HUEg0Uyhz6 8pe/KqM75f9ZfK4qQoWo49otsOr+Mv+aLKv27yBdA6PsBJcvqGRFslOMqoYu7VmXtOEz LhfI7te44wyCqzJU8DBpkvnAlMSGpyzer+IhqM/p6bI3P4PwKt8AzWZLntCwvnQrL25e 7JIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530XurtG4BLI2neh+kvJXEqMuA2RmWBNdwGXAwalG+P77utQB56i 8oa9/QuVZAOVZQnqiU9HZG03VjyZeaDD5yDG8l0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwHwfEFXCFMJ502M2Lc+l61i/yR+TWpArmLijmHM0Hdn72ksyxDaN+6SfSdVlVwcY34ALvPYJPzs/lL3i2Kzig=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c251:: with SMTP id bl17mr40595847ejb.219.1632322101315; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:48:19 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR11MB489607966AAB35A77EAE7CE2D8A19@SJ0PR11MB4896.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20210829222620.GA6858@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <SJ0PR11MB489607966AAB35A77EAE7CE2D8A19@SJ0PR11MB4896.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:48:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESsxekDjvfnpBXfm8+i4L1qhsFU8f9DBOOSWPRi+myYAwYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HT0CnOjYb0H73QuadfCmR075uJw>
Subject: Re: [Roll] IOTdir Review of draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-19
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, 22 Sep 2021 14:48:31 -0000

On September 21, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM, Pascal Thubert wrote:


Pascal:

Hi!


...
> Alvaro, can you please have a look at Toerless' argument about update vs.
> extend around line 486?
...
> > 486 4. Extending RFC 6553
> >
> > I think this RFC MUST claim to be an update to RFC6553, because the P-flag
> > added to this concrete RPI RFC exhausts a non-IANA extension point, and
> > the only way to formally avoid that any other RFCs could collide (and
> > allocate
> > the same bit) is to make this RFC an update to RFC6553. Same logic also
> > applies to update for RFC6550 and P-DAO P flag.
>
> Raising this to Alvaro's attention. This update thingy is always a tight
> discussion with him.

[By "tight" I'm assuming you mean "really fun", right? ;-)]

I agree with Toerless about the reason to formally Update rfc6553.

There is a registry for the DAO Flags, so Updating rfc6550 to allocate
the P flag is not necessary.


Thanks!

Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email