IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 06 October 2021 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 115D43A040B for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 NC1M-3b4fL_n for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABF083A041C for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (cpef81d0f835a73-cmf81d0f835a70.sdns.net.rogers.com [174.116.10.168]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9E831F45E for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:45:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1DDDB1A23F2; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:45:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CO1PR11MB48817BF59C64D77794A43F36D8B09@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CO1PR11MB48817BF59C64D77794A43F36D8B09@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> message dated "Wed, 06 Oct 2021 06:28:43 -0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 14:45:08 -0400
Message-ID: <692926.1633545908@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/IuCchtbfem2ukMGZFDgItX04rkw>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV?
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, 06 Oct 2021 18:45:20 -0000

Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > My observation is that P2P is the experiment that leads to AODV, so
    > AODV should deprecate it.

Agreed.

    > I have not heard of real deployments, and if that happened, I do not
    > expect a mix of devices that would create confusion.  So would that be
    > OK to assign MOP 4 to RPL AODV?

You've convinced me.

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Just FYI — there would need to be some process behind a move to
    > formally replace rfc6997 (beyond updating the draft).  We can deal with
    > that if we need to.

So, obsoletes RFC6997 then?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email