Re: [Roll] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-12: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Ah, OK, I understand what is happening now though I would not have gotten
that from the text.

1. It is critical that IANA considerations then add instructions to add MOP
codepoint 7 to the registry.

2. May I suggest new text for this paragraph:
OLD

“Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in
the DIO Base Object. This specification applies to MOP values 0 to 6. For a
MOP
value of 7, the compression MUST be used by default regardless of the
setting
of the "T" flag.“

NEW
"Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in
the DIO Base Object. This specification adds codepoint 7 to the registry
for this field.   For a MOP
value of 7, the compression MUST be used by default regardless of the
setting
of the "T" flag.“

Martin

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:35 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hello Martin
>
> Many thanks for your time and review!
>
> Let’s see below :
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sec 3. “Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP)
> in
> the DIO Base Object. This specification applies to MOP values 0 to 6. For
> a MOP
> value of 7, the compression MUST be used by default regardless of the
> setting
> of the "T" flag.“
>
> Is “This specification” referring to 6550 or roll-turn on-rfc8138? I have a
> feeling you mean RFC6550. But that document only defines MOPs 0-3!
>
>
> This specification means this draft not RPL.
> Not sure how to improve this text. Curiously it went through a lot of
> massaging already.
>
> On a similar note, it might be useful to establish an IANA registry for MOP
> code points so that change control for these bits is clearer.
>
> Good point, and we actually did it.
>
> Please see https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#mop
>
> Did you find anything else we could clarify ?
>
> Take care,
>
> Pascal
>