IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 02 September 2020 19:51 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 EE9433A0D9D; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 12:51:50 -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 h4ijQkMxz06X; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 12:51:49 -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 142653A0D9B; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 12:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C343899C; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:30:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id J7e6RCM4CSz3; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:30:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30D638992; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:30:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B1FB0F; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:51:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org, roll-chairs@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <159906767077.10518.17525113825721227844@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <159906767077.10518.17525113825721227844@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:51:46 -0400
Message-ID: <23816.1599076306@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/NzXpZWZ49j_ys_p5U0mqXJ9N-Vs>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 19:51:51 -0000

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > DISCUSS:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    > Now that I know that an IANA registry exists for MOP, codepoint 7 should be
    > included in the IANA considerations for the "Mode of Operation" Registry.

Okay, but we don't know what MOP #7 is yet.
We have another WG document (draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01) that, for MOP#7
extends the bit space.  That document will register MOD#7.

This document avoids keeping the reservation of the scarce bits in the header
for future versions of the protocol.  We can define it always on in the future.
(Or not. It's the future)

The WG has spent a lot of time in the last year getting this right.

So having this document allocate MOP#7 is just wrong.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email