Re: [Roll] Agenda for Monday (Re: MOP==7 live discussion )

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Alvaro,

I cannot believe we’ll need 2 hours. But certainly we can start with the high level discussions on how this impacts the 3 drafts, before we dive in how to treat RFC 8138 with MOP 7.

Take care,

Pascal

From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Sent: lundi 21 septembre 2020 14:51
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>; Ines Robles <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Agenda for Monday (Re: MOP==7 live discussion )

Hi!

I can’t stay the whole 2 hours…so I want to bash the agenda to add another question at the top.

() Should the MOP 7 Updates to rfc6550 be part of the turnon, unaware-leaves, useofrplinfo drafts?  I believe the answer is no, and I would like to make the case on the call.


BTW, on (3), unaware-leaves says that the RUL is not expected to support rfc8138.   Not expected is not the same as saying that they never will send compressed data…

Thanks!

Alvaro.


On September 21, 2020 at 7:22:26 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
All very good questions, Michael,

And it seems that we are converging.

I read the quasi-suggestion that we align the default for MOP 7 to whether 6LoWPAN HC is running on the medium? Looks good.

I have one last question, how does this discussion impact useofrpl and unaware-leaves, since they both define flags in the RPL DODAG config option. Should we converge the language? Do they all update RPL?

Talk to you all in a few hours,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: lundi 21 septembre 2020 02:31
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ines
> Robles <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Alvaro Retana
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Agenda for Monday (Re: MOP==7 live discussion )
>
>
> okay, here is my summary of the issues that are outstanding for roll-turnon-
> rfc8138.
> I am writing this in the hope that I've captured everything.
>
> 1) Will RFC8138 be enabled for MOP==7? For what media?
> I see that my notion that it should be undefined is not reasonable, and I
> step back from this.
>
> 2) In what way does the format of the DIO Base Object depend upon the MOP
> value? It seems that we need to update 6550 to say something.
>
> 3) While RUL document mandates that RULs must support 8138, it is not
> clear to me if RULs can operate in a pre-8138 network. What if they
> send 8138 compression?
> It may be that none of the compressions that 8138 creates
> will ever be emitted by a RUL, since they are all about IPIP compression
> and RH3 compression, but I haven't checked.
>
> 4) we seem to be fine for 802.15.4 networks of all sorts.
> I suspect that we are okay for all the other layers (BTLE, DECT, BACnet)
> that leverage rfc4944 through the various upgrades. But, we are sure?
> What happens on devices with multiple interfaces of different types?
> Maybe this is an RFC8138 issue really.
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>