Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao

Alvaro Retana <> Fri, 30 August 2019 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01001120B78 for <>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BOUND_DIGITS_15=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FL_EFQSiIXhw for <>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E55D0120B68 for <>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a21so8927548edt.11 for <>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mACDTwNARat+xWh0xYKY/VCM+XTI3riu5zcHjVVul/M=; b=VZB5y97QmWpIoNM97PoCCsEJWBwkmPODpZhtzmwA+FTiIEl4QLGsNF2sxlmo3fM+Ij HEYxNBWABhF45k0ioNv+Upk0xr+JHDRY2lpmP+9LcLIVq5Gc3jUqzV2iCLTuEg30eZRU GoYMmVsZ5JhouIMNk0JS44hQcDL0/U/rTpJWWQn2BgMe+JOnw4rWWA3sfJifO1kzhWPy +HkmeHW6bO5q2D0IvN7LWDl49ADUz9wZA4Qbm/jPRj5ATMyGdejTwEoFBjUvMlW18UVH BvXBygeXPXQ7HSGZHEQdT4W6nMLJt2E7sqOUuTZ5KniNYNXYBKBHtKZfBcMbG7AL4pT7 XdFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mACDTwNARat+xWh0xYKY/VCM+XTI3riu5zcHjVVul/M=; b=eZqWkaMtuVb0bY49W8gpkoG99KVBgJLEbCgmvRRxRl0cOHuYv2cm55Dw3/wN8vF1Br Q0VFhV/ybS/38sN9PccyOkmrrD7d561qup/sYzwujuyguB2Lpo0P/+dbCDsPe6RFsYTQ Ffz5+sC0r+qdwCGZPXZzXGjPqNwr+PMSlSZYIUrAZ2jpEGJtvBbm8/xIewjyxudfSUkJ /xOxu2/AuzhO4vTWAHkb2CTU0Gf9soo9jxSExw5rC9lcxS6cCcxvEfPS8+QMGA9ljH/E yyp9aoLOCF/TBLAqEjsRLRJ0x347TUmsplDyyDoquuLuhlAlhowL9P+hRi35F5S7bNg3 R6eA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWD+hnxCPa4GL7dW5dB14fuV3Y9v/iFvjIV/Z6hEOLMrN574wmw 8BZNnxmNnsIRWKqdqqHZMBi7b4e8v0ztDpzXF4NR4D49
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzHEfsUqORu5mnccsgn+Ux4yLJJYQuLobEfcw3Y9h+1DgnvyGWkWXHGW4AlT/Bj+3ldPDn0/r8oSu7NlofS+cE=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:da54:: with SMTP id w20mr10745886eds.52.1567188793502; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:13:12 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:13:12 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005531850591599373"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao
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, 30 Aug 2019 18:13:28 -0000

On August 30, 2019 at 10:20:05 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ( wrote:


The proposal does not change the behavior of the NPDAO but adds information
about why the NPDAO is sent. Are you concerned by attacks like a cover
channel? We could have one sentence on that but I’m unclear how to protect
against it.

I haven’t thought about it too long…but, yes, that could be one thing.  Not
having a mitigation is ok, as  long as a potential vulnerability is

In the future status values that modify the behavior of NPDAO may be
introduced. But for now we’d be looking at a very minimalistic change where
the reserved field carries a RPL status that does not affect the behavior
of the nodes.
The hope would be that it does not affect the reviews that were already

I hope so too…but would have to see the scope of any change first.

For now, I will ask the RFC Editor to pause processing.