Re: [Roll] [Iot-directorate] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10

Peter van der Stok <> Fri, 16 April 2021 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69443A18E5; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.115
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SIX9f-Ak2dsn; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 587223A18E3; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAF5180721B1; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 06:48:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 000411A29F6; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 06:48:04 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:48:04 +0200
From: Peter van der Stok <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
Cc: Peter Van der Stok <>,,,,
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11
Message-ID: <>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_0bb9c5a8d41ec8a255cb093248a20a7c"
X-Stat-Signature: mwxy4fg83td6ccrt6jbnbxufcstyhszq
X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout05
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 000411A29F6
X-Session-Marker: 73746F6B636F6E73406262686D61696C2E6E6C
X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX19uXRGIPzsBadxQkgV41og9ewJreYXw4Z8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=mime-version:date:from:to:cc:subject:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:message-id:content-type; s=key; bh=Qu9ssatUenWdKXWuRAcBEuoHi+Eu5nh6pnQ13nf3nVY=; b=ghnItR9frfBkmP1+mvBlWLqeo6l8TpAJVhKlRbRjxUdRihw3BN8xIqVAvdOpM4Yutsn+s/LRwKRKgWzo72i81AP0E8l9l3mgkLhOdW0vcCasBvVqb0+t/wy/6Fb3aG8Wpj7/gwhi0K8QP2urAwNfLTf+/07q581ya2LeNbs3nXU=
X-HE-Tag: 1618555684-566776
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [Iot-directorate] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 06:48:13 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

Yes, I'm fine; I hope you are also in good health.

Since a year I am not following the undercurrents in the ROLL WG. I am 
unable to tell you what they think about replacing rfc6997 currently.
When I was chair, I was more concerned with the continuation of the 
document than eventual consequences for rfc6697.

However, I think that this is the right moment to reconsider the 
replacement question.
Having two aodv documents may be confusing for ROLL adopters.

BTW, I encouraged the creation and development of rfc6697 for the 
reasons mentioned in the document.
When replacement is considered, this motivation is needed in the new 
aodv draft.

Hope this explains a bit better my review remarks.


Alvaro Retana schreef op 2021-04-15 20:57:

> On April 15, 2021 at 5:55:57 AM, Peter Van der Stok wrote:
> Peter:
> Hi!  I hope you're doing well!
>> In general, the document is well written. By looking regularly into 
>> RFC 6550,
>> I am rather sure that I could implement the protocol. The question 
>> remains
>> how this draft relates to RFC 6997. When the WG decides that this 
>> draft
>> replaces RFC 6997, then it would be good to copy some text from 6997 
>> to this
>> draft, because RFC 6997 is more explicit about the use of RPL 
>> parameters as
>> specified in RFC 6550 and presents more explicit motivation.
> As you know, the roll WG considered the question of replacing rfc6997
> as part of my AD review [1 [1]].  At the time there didn't seem to be 
> any
> strong interest in doing so.  Do you think that has changed?
> Thanks for the review!
> Alvaro.
> [1]