Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-03

[Rahul Arvind Jadhav <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Remy for the review. Please find my comments inline [RJ].

Best,
Rahul

From: Roll [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Liubing (Remy)
Sent: 07 August 2018 11:29
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-03

Hello Roll, Rahul and co-authors,

After reading the draft-ietf-roll-efficient-04, I found this draft useful. The problems, motivation and solutions are described quite clearly.

I have some minor comments:


1.       Does this draft require a new MOP to distinguish the original storing mode MOP?

[RJ]: The draft provides an improvised invalidation primitive in existing storing MOP. New MOP is not relevant for this work and the draft does not require signaling of new MOP. Any context where storing route entries are made can use this technique (including storing MOP or storing entries made using DAO projection).


2.       In the second paragraph of section 4.1, “In this case, Node A which is the common ancestor node for node D along the two paths (previous and new), may generate a DCO which traverses downwards in the network.” “traverses downwards in the network” should be clarified as “traverses downwards along the previous route”.

[RJ]: The DCO does not traverse the previous route. The DCO traverses the current route from the common ancestor to the target’s previous parent. I get what you are trying to suggest here but calling it as previous route may add to the confusion imo. Will try to rephrase the statement.


3.       The title of section 4.2 might be misleading. It proposes an update of transit information option instead of the DAO body itself. When reading the second paragraph of this section, I thought there was update to the DAO message body. The term “transit container option” should be “transit information option”?

[RJ]: Yes this should be reworded. Thanks.


4.       In section 4.4.1, how do dependent nodes know that the route is changed, so that the ‘I’ bit is set correctly?

[RJ]: I-bit allows the target node to have control over its own route invalidation. This was required because current NPDAO follows that semantic. I-bit helps DCO remain inline with this principle of NPDAO. With this rationale, the dependent node essentially can mark I-bit always in the transit option whenever regular DAO is set if it desires route-invalidation for any previous path.


From: Roll [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ines Robles
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 5:41 PM
To: roll <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-03

Dear all,

A Working Group Last call (WGLC) starts today (04/07) until 20/07 for draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-03

The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao/

Please review this draft to see if you think that it is ready for publication and send comments to the list stating your view.


Thank you very much in advance,

Ines and Peter