IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 17 May 2019 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 1FF36120172 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 13:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 XSx8ZFwNULWc for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 13:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C16D812011C for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2019 13:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x4HKae6q054080 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 17 May 2019 15:36:41 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1558125403; bh=Nuy22o51PxUsiE6JMGq6bVIzfQj6HlXONMqXQD0eWZk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=sCheUZLBaglZt3VyPTI0/QUEI8DWMnXnnFxofu1xJk1XOb1guGtFdBXWXrdcZ4C9/ y1//8szYcciHfNHaXer/z5u/NaqpwQyDIASoyYJibqj7tj4AHt5pfvziiNbXWw4Ix7 HLtCD7kliGCUTL9QjjDxYrDc6u7Uq1XaFBFki3DI=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo@ietf.org, Peter Van der Stok <consultancy@vanderstok.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, roll-chairs <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, roll <roll@ietf.org>
References: <155668484520.29014.7741405460230963379.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAP+sJUeVxRWpw558AGKMKqvmdf806QC0CsL1VHP=v7+Xhg8fuA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <36c9de0f-522a-7986-1412-c650f9e846bc@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 15:36:35 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUeVxRWpw558AGKMKqvmdf806QC0CsL1VHP=v7+Xhg8fuA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6843D8780CF0B36845FC5DAD"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/SixlKZ1chqEnCY0n1h6rZhY90A4>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25: (with 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: Fri, 17 May 2019 20:36:47 -0000

Thanks! This looks good.

/a

On 5/17/19 4:13 AM, Ines Robles wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> Thank you for your review. We have submitted a new version with 
> corrections. Please find answer in-line.
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:27 AM Adam Roach via Datatracker 
> <noreply@ietf.org <mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote:
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. I have only one
>     minor comment.
>
>     I'm a bit perplexed by the interplay between sections 3.1 and 3.3.
>
>     Section 3.1 says:
>
>     >  This change creates a flag day for existing networks which are
>     >  currently using 0x63 as the RPI value.
>
>     And then section 3.3 says:
>
>     >  In order to avoid a Flag Day caused by lack of interoperation
>     between
>     >  new RPI (0x23) and old RPI (0x63) nodes, this section defines a
>     flag
>     >  in the DIO Configuration Option...
>
>     Which leaves me wondering whether the net effect of this document
>     does or does
>     not create a flag day for networks. Please consider updating these
>     sections to
>     be consistent with each other.
>
>
> Old text:  This change would otherwise create a flag day for existing 
> networks which are...
>
> New Text: Without the signaling described below, this change would 
> otherwise create a flag day for existing networks which are currently 
> using 0x63 as the RPI value.
>
> Additionally, new text was added in Section 3.1.
>
> Thanks,
>
> The authors.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email