Re: [Roll] Review of draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-04

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 10 August 2021 17:42 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 D7C073A161A for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:42:23 -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 CQMvhdnd2eON for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F4573A160B for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6373899A for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:46:54 -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 J0K-7jfCxtD5 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C3938990 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3FD86F for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:42:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9A1DA017-AF66-4349-B070-57A4BC28A48A@cisco.com>
References: <f7a504ac-764d-09e9-d969-067e6a21646a@mimuw.edu.pl> <26245.1628534920@localhost>, <bd68ec3f-489d-a041-8a6f-1b39aca35202@mimuw.edu.pl> <9A1DA017-AF66-4349-B070-57A4BC28A48A@cisco.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: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:42:11 -0400
Message-ID: <12297.1628617331@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/RLV1GDJq9M5Svar05GE6RrlHm3Q>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Review of draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-04
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: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:42:24 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    >> 3. Even if the this approach were covered in the draft, it still has
    >> some issues, which I was about to explain but the new version of the
    >> draft appeared.

    > Yes we need to sync. I think Michael still has in mind that the minimum
    > is incremented down. That was the initial idea.

So there are three possible things, I think:
1) root expresses constant to entire DODAG
   each 6LN expresses it's local increment

2) root expresses base value, 6LNs increment it

3) root expresses base value, 6LNs increment or decrement it

I can't see a situation where there is a need to decrement it.
Is there someone who has a use case that needs that?

I thought that (2) was simplest in terms of code.
A change to the minimum priority should not reset trickle or cause new DIOs
in my opinion.

    > And my draft on versioning the configuration is also something else. We
    > need a new sequence either in this option or global to all future
    > status options from the root. That sequence would not alter the RPL
    > operation as version and DTSN do.

In the end, I agree.


--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [