Re: [Roll] About merging two RFC drafts: draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority and DODAG size

["Huimin She (hushe)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mikael,

I have added my name to the author list.

To Pascal and all,
1) I think the DODAG size represents number of nodes.
2) If the metric is introduced in the middle of the DODAG, how about setting the DODAG size to 0, meaning a useless number?

Best regards,
Huimin

On 2021/2/7, 06:21, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hello Michael 

    There’s always room for future improvements. But do we necessarily need to point it out ? I’ve had to rewrite / remove similar text in recent IESG reviews and I now believe in focusing on what’s there not what could have been or may be one day.


    Regards,

    Pascal

    > Le 6 févr. 2021 à 22:56, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> a écrit :
    > 
    > 
    > Pascal, thanks for starting this process!
    > I'm going to wait for Huimin to add his name to the author list, and
    > then I'll push an update document.
    > 
    > Your text puts both values into a single Metric.
    > I was thinking it would be two metrics, but upon reflection, it probably does
    > belong in a single metric object.
    > 

    Not sure what you mean by this. Same record ?

    > What would an appropriate default be if the metric is introduced in the
    > middle of the DODAG?
    >   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-03#section-2.1
    > 
    > 

    Not sure it should be ; that’s the text I commented out and wanted to discuss with you. My initial understanding was that it didn’t happen but rereading I found the text allowed it. Same as above allowing that it is injected in the middle raises many questions for which I have no answer like on which occasion that happens, and what sense it makes. Eg the dodag size cannot be invented by a node in the middle; realistically not can a meaningful priority for the same reasons.


    > 
    > doc> The size of the DODAG is measured by the Root based one the DAO
    > doc> activity. It represents a number of routes not a number of nodes, and
    > doc> can only be used to infer a load in an homogeneous network where each
    > doc> node advertises the same number of addresses and generates roughly the
    > doc> same amount of traffic
    > 
    > I really that we would measure in terms of number of routes.

    You mean nodes not routes? Sadly we have no way to know that, do we?


    > 
    > pt> I'm concerned that the undocumented/future behavior will create comments
    > pt> at the IESG.  My observation is that we should either define the process
    > pt> fully or not mention it at all.
    > 
    > I concur that we will get comments, and yet, I think that we really do want
    > to allow for "future work".

    More than comments; they ask for crisp specification, backward compatibility and security issues...

    Take care,

    Pascal 
    > 
    > --
    > Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
    >           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide