IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-13

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 10 April 2020 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 DC68C3A0EBF; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:06:45 -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 SvV4AK3ZfA74; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D24D3A0E9F; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BA13897D; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:04:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B0510E7; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:06:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Shwetha Bhandari <shwethab@cisco.com>
cc: iot-directorate@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves.all@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <158651366814.686.11455640252719493504@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <158651366814.686.11455640252719493504@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:06:36 -0400
Message-ID: <14798.1586556396@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/Mhh6oBR1jIndHeFF7lOZ0MWYR0w>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-13
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: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 22:06:46 -0000

Shwetha Bhandari via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    > 1. "The new "P" flag is defined only for MOP value between 0 to 6. "he new "P"
    > flag is defined only for MOP value between 0 to 6.  For a MOP value of 7 or
    > above, the flag MAY indicate something different and MUST NOT be interpreted as
    > "Root Proxies  EDAR/EDAC" unless the MOP specifies it : Given that currently on
    > 0 - 5 MOP are specified and should this be changed to  MOP 6 and above P flag
    > may indicate according to a future specification? 2.  Resizing of

For MOP=7, ROLL has a document "mopex" which lets us add expanded values.
Moving to mopex will in some ways be an RPL v2.0.

When we get there, the WG has made it clear that it would be up to the
definor of that mode to say which flags they want to keep or reuse.
We think that a lot of behaviours will be "given", and not need to be
signaled, so we'll get those flags back.

That's why we define it for MOP 0 to 6 only.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email