Re: [Roll] enrollment priority

Hi Michael,

As we discussed throughout the mailing list, we also need a sequence 
number so that correct values of DODAG_Size and min_priority are 
adopted. This in turn requires putting more information in the draft on 
the rules of adopting the values. They are explicitly formulated in my 
earlier e-mail about GLOBAL vs FLEXIBLE.

Take care,
-- 
- Konrad Iwanicki.

On 22/11/2021 15:15, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> I'm trying to edit draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority to reflect the WG
> consensus.
> 
> I think that we agreed that the nodes within the DODAG should not change
> their enrollment priority.  It can be set by the root in it's DIO, and it
> will propogate through the DODAG according to the normal trickle settings.
> Changes to the priority will *not*(?!) reset the trickle timer.
> 
> https://github.com/roll-wg/draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority/pull/9 is the
> pull request I just made, which may be easier to see the changes.
> 
> specifically, I've deleted this line:
> 
> https://github.com/roll-wg/draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority/pull/9/files#diff-fe544a5ddaac2d404d7b76aa1204d54e36f5eb6618f3f52f0c0dc56dca4061faL169
> 
>     The nodes then adjust this base value based upon their observed
>     congestion, emitting their adjusted DIO value to their children.
> 
> I actually find that there isn't a lot else to delete.
> 
> I am concerned that I did not understand the WG consensus correctly, so I am
> have not yet published this version.
> 
> Do we want to retain the ability for the root to send a value 0-0x7f into the DODAG,
> or was it only 0 and 1 that were useful?
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 