Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 05 September 2019 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rahul.ietf@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 A5C70120090 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 23:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 ZHAZOIts5FXV for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 23:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe42.google.com (mail-vs1-xe42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e42]) (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 78E5112006E for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 23:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe42.google.com with SMTP id w195so810617vsw.11 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 23:56:08 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tV4RL7lAHjwS/d5MIusvdm9e0UTtezuphAyodCf0nLo=; b=KpPVjl6ycZTmvzn4/uYb1iWe6zPdXaIXOUz/6/uVhqENHSlrcl8/FMssW1dkQgygLL vI0e2059/lS1YfDaL7iHLWHPLE1MXxwfk78NyVPHlk2fX2KQ+qXk9tYIECOIw2NcGfq2 S11YF4eBdhh3d9321dwMzfwHoum+/smYjt287apPRt792RGvW/K250+DkTWUcFnzrM1J UUpno15jauvATRM24OXldCuh6yJW4WEljAtdLSfHjnxnGCGdLp1VIT8HSLRdRsXs2ty6 X3p+J4h7qEmqkqmJGBVv3rCK72arPlrY7uwMkD9URHMqF/MVcnnj6kc33Rg1DIoSX8rk 0OOA==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tV4RL7lAHjwS/d5MIusvdm9e0UTtezuphAyodCf0nLo=; b=O8kU8UMGrm3Aizytu1t7iSzdRiAbgbMJhesSbQQa+NvXc/sWqyr26PehxuDtq377h/ UIRTQVUjP8uZfgsZR8DdsIj9bKyE0RcqhPoLtx5S3zgkLNu+Tx0NHj0pts8S1sc1W1xC +8PHJpF1JDYeWX+dFly3jwcpO8kfo0nJH+rN1kwgKJUUkqBev9XIuZ2JLlnSOFxIfNOo mIILCOIVDhfNCv7UKal/JBR2qh0N7ijq3S/jfKVD44H0zD/tSPNPSjOWVgcOO0rojyY5 m91xO9c2ppOfkX/a2EO+K3nH1cMYixS0rRAoY8D0UzyG0t+smHecmXRb7lQBIQNmK3Bo TzcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXI6qOdjZ5NFIgvDP/eo77SLIh796bqjd+M1TP3M7lLXFzJpFl kVjrIdYxONK9iKnHvkTJ9NEoz4d2DYFrcDsO6RaUPTptXyo0dQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwuP0EFzusGWexux/vMcA7vf3Dumj1TN1rwqAVARnYg6VFZZ63wqrVPWg1Wx7bZSjBWa0wCEDQTzZZIbldTgOI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:7c7:: with SMTP id y7mr901845vsg.208.1567666567246; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 23:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB3565DAEEF4DD78D732EDE17DD8B80@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAP+sJUc+UMsqDQvyc1kaM8zNmq43jB9zNRXZ7eijyB9XjcomiQ@mail.gmail.com> <BM1PR01MB26126BE7BC1F809C34E0B5DBA9BB0@BM1PR01MB2612.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <MN2PR11MB3565D2139143EFF0F43055E3D8BB0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565D2139143EFF0F43055E3D8BB0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:25:55 +0530
Message-ID: <CAO0Djp1Vb6DTeJGix_93Ee_jqaaZRkJDurb_6OvWxZcKi=xe_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/UF9cKNm3TRlnmnhzEbcAK9r5rnk>
Subject: Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor
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: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 06:56:12 -0000

The erratum seems to have been reported long back.
Final updates: https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/commit/9fff6e6051c2a2560bddd3f5097bf19149edd52a

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 12:01, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Rahul
>
>
>
> RPL says
>
>
>
>      1-127:  Not an outright rejection; the node sending the DAO-ACK
>
>                is willing to act as a parent, but the receiving node is
>
>                suggested to find and use an alternate parent instead.
>
>      127-255:  Rejection; the node sending the DAO-ACK is unwilling to
>
>                act as a parent.
>
>
>
>
>
> Note that the 127 as a rejection is a typo. The intent was that 127 is not a rejection. We could write an erratum for this I guess so rejection starts at 128.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> From: Rahul Jadhav <nyrahul@outlook.com>
> Sent: jeudi 5 septembre 2019 05:44
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>om>; Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor
>
>
>
> Thank you Pascal for the changes and pull request.
>
> Have merged the changes.
>
> I made two minor changes, please check if there are ok:
>
> https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/commit/8af38e8f44b963987ee6754d644d6ef70409462f
>
>
>
> If yes, then please use the latest xml from
>
> https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao.xml
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rahul
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Ines Robles <mariainesrobles=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 10:33 AM
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor
>
>
>
> Hi Pascal,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for your hard work.
>
>
>
> Could you please convert the draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16.xml to txt [https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/] and put them here https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation, so people can read the complete document with the proposed changes, thus we can have a last call.
>
>
>
> Many thanks again,
>
>
>
> Ines and Peter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
>
>
> We are holding NP DAO for a change that does not impact the behavior of the node but improves traceability.
>
> I would like to confirm consensus on this change rapidly so we can give the doc back to RFC editor.
>
>
>
> The proposed change is as follows:
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------
>
>
>
> diff --git "a/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-15.xml" "b/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16.xml"
>
> index 8a0acca..2ed0920 100644
>
> --- "a/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-15.xml"
>
> +++ "b/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16.xml"
>
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
>
> <?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>
>
> <!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
>
> <!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
>
> -<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-15" ipr="trust200902">
>
> +<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16" ipr="trust200902">
>
>    <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
>
>       ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
>
>       you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
>
> @@ -582,11 +582,12 @@
>
>
>
>              <t>
>
>                  This document specifies a change in the Transit Information Option to
>
> -                contain the "Invalidate previous route" (I) flag. This I-flag signals
>
> +                contain the "Invalidate previous route" (I) flag. This 'I' flag signals
>
>                  the common ancestor node to generate a DCO on behalf of the
>
> -                target node. The I-flag is carried in the Transit Information
>
> +                target node with a RPL Status of 130 indicating that the address
>
> +                has moved. The 'I' flag is carried in the Transit Information
>
>                  Option which augments the reachability information for a given
>
> -                set of RPL Target(s). Transit Information Option with I-flag
>
> +                set of RPL Target(s). Transit Information Option with 'I' flag
>
>                  set should be carried in the DAO message when route
>
>                  invalidation is sought for the corresponding target(s).
>
>              </t>
>
> @@ -615,8 +616,8 @@
>
>              </t>
>
>              <t>
>
>                  The common ancestor node SHOULD generate a DCO message in
>
> -                response to this I-flag when it sees that the routing
>
> -                adjacencies have changed for the target. The I-flag is
>
> +                response to this 'I' flag when it sees that the routing
>
> +                adjacencies have changed for the target. The 'I' flag is
>
>                  intended to give the target node control over its own route
>
>                  invalidation, serving as a signal to request DCO generation.
>
>              </t>
>
> @@ -638,7 +639,7 @@
>
> 0                   1                   2                   3
>
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> -| RPLInstanceID |K|D|   Flags   |   Reserved    | DCOSequence   |
>
> +| RPLInstanceID |K|D|   Flags   |  RPL  Status  | DCOSequence   |
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> |                                                               |
>
> +                                                               +
>
> @@ -683,8 +684,15 @@
>
>                  the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
>
>              </t>
>
>              <t>
>
> -                Reserved: 8-bit unused field. The field MUST be initialized to
>
> -                zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
>
> +                RPL Status: The RPL Status as defined in section 6.5.1 of <xref
>
> +                target="RFC6550"/>.
>
> +                Indicative of the reason why the DCO happened, the RPL Status
>
> +                MUST NOT be changed as the DCO is propagated down the route
>
> +                being invalidated.
>
> +                This value is informative and does not affect the behavior of
>
> +                the receiver. In particular, unknown values are ignored by the
>
> +                receiver.
>
> +                Only Rejection Codes (value above 128) are expected in a DCO.
>
>              </t>
>
>              <t>
>
>                  DCOSequence: 8-bit field incremented at each unique DCO message
>
> @@ -759,7 +767,7 @@
>
> 0                   1                   2                   3
>
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> -| RPLInstanceID |D|   Flags     |  DCOSequence  |    Status     |
>
> +| RPLInstanceID |D|   Flags     |  DCOSequence  | DCO-ACK Status|
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> |                                                               |
>
> +                                                               +
>
> @@ -788,8 +796,10 @@
>
>                      copied from the DCOSequence received in the DCO message.
>
>                  </t>
>
>                  <t>
>
> -                    Status: Indicates the completion. Status 0 is defined as
>
> -                    unqualified acceptance in this specification. Status 1 is
>
> +                    DCO-ACK Status: Indicates the completion. A value of 0 is
>
> +                    defined as
>
> +                    unqualified acceptance in this specification. A value of 1
>
> +                    is
>
>                      defined as "No routing-entry for the Target found". The
>
>                      remaining status values are reserved as rejection codes.
>
>                  </t>
>
> @@ -910,7 +920,7 @@
>
>                      nodes will generate their respective DAOs to update their
>
>                      paths, and the previous route invalidation for those nodes
>
>                      should work in the similar manner described for switching
>
> -                    node. The dependent node may set the I-flag in the Transit
>
> +                    node. The dependent node may set the 'I' flag in the Transit
>
>                      Information Option as part of regular DAO so as to
>
>                      request invalidation of previous route from the common
>
>                      ancestor node.
>
> @@ -920,7 +930,7 @@
>
>                      of their parents in turn have decided to switch their
>
>                      parent. Thus for route invalidation the dependent nodes may
>
>                      choose to always set the 'I' flag in all its DAO message's
>
> -                    Transit Information Option. Note that setting the I-flag is
>
> +                    Transit Information Option. Note that setting the 'I' flag is
>
>                      not counterproductive even if there is no previous
>
>                      route to be invalidated.
>
>                  </t>
>
> @@ -1103,7 +1113,7 @@
>
>
>
>          <t>
>
>              IANA is requested to allocate bit 1 from the Transit Information
>
> -            Option Flags registry for the I-flag (<xref target="transit_opt_changes"/>)
>
> +            Option Flags registry for the 'I' flag (<xref target="transit_opt_changes"/>)
>
>          </t>
>
>          <section title="New Registry for the Destination Cleanup Object (DCO) Flags">
>
>              <t>
>
> @@ -1210,22 +1220,29 @@
>
>              This document introduces the ability for a common ancestor node to
>
>              invalidate a route on behalf of the target node. The common
>
>              ancestor node could be directed to do so by the target node using
>
> -            the I-flag in DCO's Transit Information Option. However, the common
>
> +            the 'I' flag in DCO's Transit Information Option. However, the common
>
>              ancestor node is in a position to unilaterally initiate the route
>
>              invalidation since it possesses all the required state information,
>
>              namely, the Target address and the corresponding Path Sequence..
>
>              Thus a rogue common ancestor node could initiate such an
>
>             invalidation and impact the traffic to the target node.
>
>          </t>
>
> +        <t> The DCO carries a RPL Status value, which is informative. New Status
>
> +            values may be created over time and a node will ignore an unknown
>
> +            Status value. Which makes it so that the RPL Status field may be
>
> +            used as a cover channel. But the channel only works once since the
>
> +            message destroys its own medium, that is the existing route that it
>
> +            is removing.
>
> +        </t>
>
>          <t>
>
> -            This document also introduces an I-flag which is set by the target
>
> +            This document also introduces an 'I' flag which is set by the target
>
>              node and used by the ancestor node to initiate a DCO if the
>
>              ancestor sees an update in the route adjacency. However,
>
>              this flag could be spoofed by a malicious 6LR in the path and can
>
>              cause invalidation of an existing active path. Note that invalidation
>
>              will happen only if the other conditions such as Path Sequence
>
>              condition is also met. Having said that, such a malicious 6LR may
>
> -            spoof a DAO on behalf of the (sub) child with the I-flag set and
>
> +            spoof a DAO on behalf of the (sub) child with the 'I' flag set and
>
>              can cause route invalidation on behalf of the (sub) child node..
>
>              Note that, using existing mechanisms offered by <xref
>
>                  target="RFC6550"/>, a malicious 6LR might also spoof a DAO with
>
>
>
>
>
> Chairs, could we please last call or whatever so we can move on?
>
>
>
> Many thanks!
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll