Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 22:10 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 2E8D23A1174; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:10:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 xfBnHBiVNfDC; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:10:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x934.google.com (mail-ua1-x934.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::934]) (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 71E653A116F; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:10:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x934.google.com with SMTP id q68so1219608uaq.3; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:10:33 -0800 (PST)
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=+RwgCmUKvNzC+k1pfB7JdhwfpXu6TgKsLIQhAeRUQoU=; b=mIzbCuoq7HW6q0QJnXIjJvv6pOaSPk7XP+11N0iUu4RlcyXHdnYVH5gxwWY6dihVH+ dQXE5bEZHw/QNTKAEpOS3Nmf0LlrySmx8ZJ66nxoon57RTzZfl+REM2X69vRV4gjvrPl 7530mMO9APImbGw2GIYUQoQ6qjbsc3JdlCfyUCeakcIl2gHk32hVLDz9BAA4jWKjlIbZ vptCGwo6Bce3x0JCoKDfgP3885d4knZyGHA24AOoc35bhAkKa9i2bXks69BjSWE2vA3W 2vOiLxBqp1llronUeWTxbze5Ae3/InWG/llOS7ZnFicDh0ouAg39BMcmPaCOXy25qcDG MyBw==
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=+RwgCmUKvNzC+k1pfB7JdhwfpXu6TgKsLIQhAeRUQoU=; b=SjU6Z8/4hrWBRpyew7yShGUTbGt5yARw/XrFmOj3EmxGvGsFKC4HjX+QtlfiZOH952 7rzxUCPCAzLUX8VIqncxv5Ik6324AZmwfDklHtFISeTgWfjLRVh/eJn/lmOWiEOq5Uw6 aVynng2+hwQD7ehC1mL7UfaoMK8xq/PX+BvbCrhBW5OxNOyrW9LTjuL6BDM7sK4LlPYA kAPtmvHoRWTUq5Fa93U9QakozY+HFHFCccI4jPbZL9sDnJ5v0pLiwCQOSZ54oFz8v1Sy f7A02+7ea1nYTllbCHwqZkcD0Lcz6yeg99o7laEY7G2iqGlCnC84Bf0k1pyHjGvLBCy9 mlfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533tFcgK5dyxi5K6mTAqi05R/drfpjI9CsWQUHy059ti1gNHT02m upmc3z47yW27CAzzcZA51u89IEBWEWnjLqz4Vik=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzMFVA8MOw9pnzcPlHaC+/APjl9UyyUvGl216yrCXeFq6Jxa7A5AMxxBjXuvQS2ww45izAI/dwwKfBkmEwrdBI=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:1c08:: with SMTP id a8mr3385961uaj.17.1605132632397; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:10:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMESsw9Ryj+aLmhqYu+NwkdQ11BoWxsEfbAvCr8OBk_DwRUGw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsw9Ryj+aLmhqYu+NwkdQ11BoWxsEfbAvCr8OBk_DwRUGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 00:09:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUd3JqKM4sr=-s6=0sb+EP7H2-rt4pyGphW6PHtU1Fr5uA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo@ietf.org>, Peter van der Stok <consultancy@vanderstok.org>, "roll-chairs@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005f1a3005b3dc10ab"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/KTSU81RZJv8jWuCipMwq01VKVO8>
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41
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, 11 Nov 2020 22:10:35 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

Many thanks for your review. We addressed your comments on version 42 (
https://github.com/roll-wg/useofrplinfo/blob/master/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-42.txt
)
Should be do a manual post request or wait until 14th Nov?

Thank you again,

Ines.



On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:57 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear authors:
>
> Thank you for all the work on this draft.
>
> I have a couple of comments in-line -- nothing hard to address.  I
> mostly looked at the diffs (wrt -31) and so my comments are just on
> new text.
>
> I want to progress this draft with unaware-leaves -- to make it easier
> on the IESG.  I'll start the IETF LC when both are ready.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
> >From idnits:
>
>   ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC8138]), which it
>      shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
>      documents in question.
>
>
>
> [Line numbers from idnits.]
>
>
> ...
> 66         4.  Updates to RFC6553, RFC6550 and RFC8138 . . . . . . . . . .
> .   7
> 67           4.1.  Updates to RFC6550: Advertising External Routes with
> Non-
> 68                 Storing Mode Signaling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> .   7
> 69           4.2.  Updates to RFC6553: Indicating the new RPI Option Type.
> .   8
> 70           4.3.  Updates to RFC6550:
> 71                 Configuration Options and Mode
> 72                 of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> .  11
> 73           4.4.  Updates to RFC6550: Indicating the new RPI in the
> 74                 DODAG Configuration option Flag.  . . . . . . . . . . .
> .  12
> 75           4.5.  Updates to RFC8138: Indicating the way to decompress
> with
> 76                 the new RPI Option Type.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> .  13
>
> [nit - no action needed, just a suggestion] Group all the updates to
> rfc6550: either in one sub-section or in consecutive ones.
>
>
> ...
> 493     4.3.  Updates to RFC6550: Configuration Options and Mode of
> Operation
>
> 495        RFC6550 section 6.7.6 describes the DODAG Configuration
> Option.  In
> 496        this option are a series of Flags in the first octet of the
> payload.
> 497        These flags are described by the DODAG Configuration Option
> Flags
> 498        registry [dodagcfg], in section 20.14 of RFC6550.
>
> 500        Anticipating future work to revise RPL relating to how the LLN
> and
> 501        DODAG is configured, this document changes the interpretation
> of the
> 502        [dodagcfg] Registry to be limited to Mode-of-Operation (MOP)
> 503        specific.  The MOP is described in [RFC6550] section 6.3.1.  The
> 504        Options Flags Registry is renamed, and applies to MOP values
> zero (0)
> 505        to six (6) only, leaving the flags reserved for MOP value seven
> (7).
>
> 507        In addition, this document reserves MOP value 7 for future
> expansion.
>
> [] NEW>
>    Section 6.7.6 of RFC6550 describes the DODAG Configuration Option as
>    containing a series of Flags in the first octet of the payload