Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-07

Alvaro Retana <> Thu, 15 August 2019 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765911200B7; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zw6vyTo4dkFk; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BA0D120090; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g8so2418337edm.6; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ScNTU6iAyD62URDuxfcEC4OXLuQh3mW9yrWFXfIJC3g=; b=eaDulx7d6lq/enSaWIMhLe46+M9QixMcSoock4+vxsRxbKi7+/yXyAXRqU5kzGBa69 pCt2TvFNqc8LS0tXJ0CQMCG7SF6TxtW6FNFF4GYuyKa5uz7LHMhUll0v/imQ/OfGAu9Y DEu9kq86cHRAyHeq2hXNyDMrMkiQN6LXK1TQixil2c/mTDabh/o37D3JH2K2xvWjv7Rs CddofUsLctgg1h/Wj1LXVxryqIjGIXh88eg08Fu51PKEpOpXFVqfdvBdehyX19tuiv/X MW/hTJUukKZVFEKnHqw7rr7TH4DIJXOw3aZMP7guAHvtRnQ5jxLZMoGwHuV8Z05gcDMl MLmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ScNTU6iAyD62URDuxfcEC4OXLuQh3mW9yrWFXfIJC3g=; b=h7gGf+xnsfpo6ddpo2X3y7mRj+rNxcprmXQI0G8Zujj0pNdtTtJLOn3YiMS450wrS8 OGJhHGuyjXiIJKQ9b3K728HORlxPhOomVl6wubtTPBsItF5rnnOz05HO6Nctls0fA+js g6ZJvi2x51xzBodcM3l6K9ptP73dx0T2U79ISQFgxbNkcRwPZBCPnn8ComKyoAUmhUwj ukjnlX7216Opr2t5SeIlJwm2Le6G/UyiV1Mp1XYtpFN/7wn35CQibiE3kVhS+l1akShJ SvH34so5Zm0RtYofh0D/+BjzENytIs/mW72jSW7aAW1vdK8lXptbDRYhJFO/4ux06j3X iMOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXgQ6J/4VTr/7eWlIpDWY5ZjWTcscqdq4B8eEjRoX9PePsIw3+B zPyG1+a0U8W1FJnsameFHsQcGPmN+bQ/4UVM7jzOr8Bv
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzafwLKnaUyFcNH8kJMVMdJk3mWAhqmjuj4y6hupokx7wDQLkSAotuCNv4NtEnN/lVjcQNuCs9EC3JGmhj6mUE=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:93c3:: with SMTP id o61mr5985819eda.87.1565882473701; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:21:12 -0400
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:21:12 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Ines Robles <>, Peter van der Stok <>,
Cc: roll-chairs <>, roll <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009ae4140590296cf4"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 15:21:18 -0000


Thanks for the reply!

As I said in the review, I was just asking to make sure it was considered.



On August 12, 2019 at 3:08:58 AM, Peter van der Stok (

concerning replacement of RFC6997:

I don't see anyone deploying both specifications in one installation.
As you remarked RFC6997 was recommended in RFC7733 especially om my request.
However, things have advanced since, and more options exist to specify
short routes between neighbouring nodes without passing through the root.
Consequently, the need for RFC6997 has diminished.
Moreover, I find it difficult to answer whether aodv-rpl can replace
RFC6997 without any efficiency loss.
An answer to the last question may be given directly by aodv-rpl authors
based on experience?