[Roll] Is MoP from (0 to 7) enough network operation modes, or is enough?

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 05 January 2018 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@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 20ED2127873 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:43:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 MXo6cuOQws7o for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:43:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x229.google.com (mail-ot0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::229]) (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 8E3641201F2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:43:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x229.google.com with SMTP id x15so4912632ote.0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:43:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=4rPQIaNlBH1urQNdRJPOY5/1fFJ0Z3BrvLrv5dbOQ1E=; b=YRFBd5uKSPCY1kpM4w99L9ANvB8PyRRSpaF203O2b3p3ur0FXqhyH5k/fzo6sxHBsU u3FFbiXQUcLPjVm8vmAcAh3ltyFn/JWlZbdZhwUxnTrj90IOuDlyK72vGkP8vZqIfn6B gemu5yr88cYfZ0W/5fkU7ZbcfT6BfbV6Fb6IKuT5PFRQiTEZETJzFyuudLMo5XP1IIHl oPiWu3gT6Zz4a1hNjhmICq9Ed2WGUkfBg8UllhkIYdGn911Zc0pmKEpzHCBuzp2tKd/c +Xvoho0WdyxGs68/sKGh9it1yJgFkuzAcDwI9A6zsbeCUU8wsriqOfShQ4Y9m8byytBp qnAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=4rPQIaNlBH1urQNdRJPOY5/1fFJ0Z3BrvLrv5dbOQ1E=; b=nxqm4j4Q+K8K6GCv+L/1ZYGHD+MMy+oYjRPHZJcHAbK7NQ+TSAWAXJrlvTd0nksf+O RK1auTtSwUGCmHjwi/8qiUV7FUuMFS+0ggrtjIMi7P1DVMtZW7HX+kTTYZqr491BDQL7 Gd9X5JH/BMnbQ5zcSMuHpkqoxtdGVlzRUXSoVcUU8Kr5vUwhjlx9c35QTXui2qsxYFYk JSdJELtScGYXjFcJQev0jz3rCMW0WVDoTTi75PDES/2+3QOWbwZrq+6px4d8TWX4SHWL aDpU+37O03xxoQy+/D1AeOpedpwp9Kyzueir7hR8fO+Vo1yA7xvYt8M0RrwdCvt+T55U LYPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytf9US/7P6B0b1J/2XWhby6J+r94Qe43/plGVn6BYrlp3urAhAL8 DkpuSv410/0Np3/8SCGnCy5yUhLcmssMVRxWIx8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouZK2e+LNH5yF6HjduFVm2yauvBaB43I03RVcnwxSrmChjV00yg98MLgLCttLx0fqFkEjCI1OH0nWPCsQ/qnSw=
X-Received: by 10.157.10.133 with SMTP id 5mr2498567otq.51.1515185000881; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:43:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.26.42 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:43:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 22:43:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8_xb7fMzeKwK_dgEdjR1XPbUEm-MKiSOSXuZXJK-YX05A@mail.gmail.com>
To: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0352d6bf218105620d7fcb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/Kzgd3O_USr4MTyiCqRhXXRshbcA>
Subject: [Roll] Is MoP from (0 to 7) enough network operation modes, or is enough?
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:43:23 -0000

In my opinion we use this MoP for the network operation not for discovery
operations. In RFC6997 registered 4, which is discovery on demand extension
for RPL. I think it will not make enough use for more important operations
related to networks of LLN requirements.

Routing protocols have two parts: route discovery and route
operation/maintenance, I think if we change the RPL operation or change the
network capability, then use MoP as done for 0, 1, 2, 3 registrations.

We need to make sure we look into answering for our LLN use cases (RFC5548,
RFC5673, RFC5826)  are they covering most of our MoP operations???

AB