Re: [Roll] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 963FD3A1111; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 VaEZ0G9cM_fT; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (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 423123A110A; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id m17so650079ioo.1; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lmCOCJ9n7EzD+ogClnhtlcWAdwD+3NZb60q5oKbubZk=; b=Oto6qZgOLuoJNrnrg8VhyASJjOb4zZ/79aqiXhNR7s8vFjs2ywccvNOKzMWr5oO6YD EdabtFHfgxxRAoc2+hvjAjeuuzLxlHUcSxnp/v1xTCeSvkNa9D2b9NB3xgOd2Cbsno9H PR36BxzV3To7KIWQCHOkp83Qdh8sRp/gslbS8WLqfAg0uyF3Xq0YO4zzk+vw6XETq4cI Dw/PoBBMSZ8yPwimqqbCqJoHlCMHu5XQjHQt2ykteGPJ7ZWiHWcuOZqKR8foZ4vQ8Mwv uhfUeWhxt2jcHSk+PTlNFTrm5xxmXQR9l4B+Vf2/07eLdQ8qkKttX1NQGl7wrmE2szEF bPKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lmCOCJ9n7EzD+ogClnhtlcWAdwD+3NZb60q5oKbubZk=; b=oVWjZa2dyONF9imrso6LZAGDpwWg8autnSVmfG7TztwuNqH81AQyI2s/xfz7E05i0w cHY+h2kZv3Qltr0YGhUzxoQx8C3dMM1EsKWLmoN/yhvglEAWZWP4mLO3eH9mIUxNyVyO kA++upHUJ43nvuMhsH+gUxnpwdtG44B4ed3ziCCkYes9d3sQZ8mNh8MojZrYl3yY5+Xb sdqrekzt2NR6Bi6WCiO26ryJwjnWtTy+/dLc+ifMge32tRLzvfyOkQ/5O0BA+l6i7cIx eoccym0serT0VcVbsuF4YhEUBMTn6FeftXW9siTpQV//DuHEhBiboZg+gdhByD6DcWst 9cvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jG3Bfj/7/NMsdRvNsbARCuRAtdxzZryNxUnPsNDLX53yfVpq/ 6idAsEbDxw6LFpeQUHbUUlB70TcAn/crdVnBnR0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwBJ+XtzidY/2Q8RT9g32M5S4J+ib0HPB5WjS2JYNmxZ81oOY+p5QyJnvkYmTAXSKmmXmRm+vpZmngiYwUJOi8=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9d10:: with SMTP id j16mr392623ioj.97.1599085394291; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159906767077.10518.17525113825721227844@ietfa.amsl.com> <23816.1599076306@localhost> <D775F810-6962-43AC-8CB5-DDAC25E19D87@cisco.com> <CAMMESsypLvWxO4FpZcYwyeGquVwT+voJ=GOEi5xE6ZWU5SkOsw@mail.gmail.com> <14761.1599082323@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <14761.1599082323@localhost>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:23:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxToTtCHeMKaq5kHAJi5EZWOky4juw4PP2P2CMjm=h1ksg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e470f305ae5c1449"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/Tmv1XEbeIz8pJDCcmBYg5ttCTF0>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-12: (with DISCUSS and 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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 22:23:17 -0000

I find this all very odd, which maybe is a sign we should simply DISCUSS in
the telechat. As far as I can understand:
- codepoints 5, 6,  and 7 are currently unassigned, though
draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01 (still in the WG) allocates 7 as a field extender
(though this is not listed as a dependency)
- The intent of this document is to define a compression behavior of MOP 7
independently of the eventual outcome of roll-mopex, or indeed what the
extended MOP codepoints might want to do
- MOP 7 might indicate there is no T flag, although the current draft says
there would be and quick scan of draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01 doesn't reveal
why that might be true..

It is entirely possible I missed something critical, but as described this
seems unsatisfactory to me.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:32 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > Maybe what needs to be slightly clarified is this text from §3:
>
>     >    Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation
> (MOP) in
>     >    the DIO Base Object.  This specification applies to MOP values 0
> to
>     >    6.  For a MOP value of 7, the compression MUST be used by default
>     >    regardless of the setting of the "T" flag.
>
>     > The specification does apply to all MOPs in that it is specifying
> what to do.
>
>     NEW>
>     >    Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation
> (MOP) in the
>     >    DIO Base Object.  This behavior specified in this document
> applies to MOP
>     >    values 0 to 6.  For a MOP value of 7, the compression MUST be
> used by
>     >    default regardless of the setting of the "T" flag.
>
> That doesn't really work better.
> For a MOP value of 7, there is no T flag.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>