Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 11 November 2020 23:18 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 C97283A11E5; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 15:18:42 -0800 (PST)
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 U6EF06BuL7ir; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 15:18:40 -0800 (PST)
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 F230F3A11E2; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 15:18:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA80389BA; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:19:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ptHpq85UoK7B; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:19:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E24389B5; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:19:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8D9EF4; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:18:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
cc: "draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo\@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo@ietf.org>, "roll-chairs\@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsw9Ryj+aLmhqYu+NwkdQ11BoWxsEfbAvCr8OBk_DwRUGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMMESsw9Ryj+aLmhqYu+NwkdQ11BoWxsEfbAvCr8OBk_DwRUGw@mail.gmail.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, 11 Nov 2020 18:18:37 -0500
Message-ID: <2502.1605136717@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/RQZRyQM1goJPraygdGPdAYOKZKg>
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41
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, 11 Nov 2020 23:18:43 -0000

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > [major] The text in §4.3 says that the flags for MOP 7 are reserved
    > (I'm suggesting unassigned -- but that makes no difference in the
    > context of this comment), but this text seems to want to pre-define

I believe that we got advice from IANA that RESERVED was the right state.
It could be changed by an IESG action, such as publishing an IETF Consensus RFC.

Unassigned, in theory, leaves IANA free to allocate it to the next document
that asks for a MOP value. Of course, in practice, it would come back to the
WG, Expert Review, etc. but...

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide