Re: [Roll] Remaining issues on draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension

Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <aris@ariskou.com> Fri, 27 March 2020 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <aris@ariskou.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 68C4A3A0C9D for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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=mailfence.com header.b=f4OwqplW; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ariskou.com header.b=QHfVH6qi
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 VgXO4p0alHn0 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com (mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com [212.3.242.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 080CD3A08FB for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpauth1.co-bxl (smtpauth1.co-bxl [10.2.0.15]) by mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E832BA for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:52:53 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailfence.com; s=20160819-nLV10XS2; t=1585327973; bh=plaVxU8etGWT26hBOiQ+006O9QXoP0q8IfrLyTFFoG0=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=f4OwqplWNAxGhull1PTZm4J6tKNaOSgKE7DMR17vAUKEH/4DPminC96LBQQwvphEX Ow+328YD78gE+DgvXuj9LpzV4w+6aNpzYjWAZtQwGDJESjdnpwFscckj+eKQeh0Bpu PvcBt6RYal2NTkckCNvlGabLS5d9CqbeH1OR/IuzLy9QI2BZ9WQu2cCfm9/Bihxhof RLRZ5ksEV0RH1JrmzijoKAtEh7NiuOL5MkW+v/PQ6lIVsH+Rf9LVgJrriBruAO+I3v N7VK/PhWhzI/a3Lzf2dGaEvVPXe2owrqdPDb+ENHyg8jo6U4TMKVxzFnBWn2JPreQd YD3BXtSuZHzzw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1585327973; s=20191001-wvim; d=ariskou.com; i=aris@ariskou.com; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type; l=8672; bh=plaVxU8etGWT26hBOiQ+006O9QXoP0q8IfrLyTFFoG0=; b=QHfVH6qiHG21FOQBNfCyufptMZLLXLpuaTqwYNuJpYgOGaO69XYomzhInied7tgM 0yT5ZNp6g/mBQbTYak9zWKw+yWpww+Bphm6emzA7JLEnwAn9jKfj9mR8mm/LEbA9oLo M0NIy73qK1EWx9c94kuVcN8E6F15pYLCefSY9AHyNRcJyKSUnCAkbr5seOC6O3y0Ipt +Bu7otrVdGrUoYG4TaId11msifbiLiQywlKF1POTOiE16i2c0g3QY27w15VVr/68C2Y rO17C2f023MFD3oJ1V1DDkyG/vRpISJXeo0p6L6KZ6ttxeP6oelQNKc6IQkANvwEf8S 7+VJAzz9FQ==
Received: by smtp.mailfence.com with ESMTPA for <roll@ietf.org> ; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:52:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-il1-f169.google.com with SMTP id t11so9408457ils.1 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2jILff8PWQCBdS9zRT5QoDYd1KErT2w6uIOpXpod27V3qm1yc1 N/S7wLjqK4NAgtyeZ/WlOsj6WyHHlTD6uQiwdMg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtVkzmO0lrHGhYXsI88Abkj0dJJKC1dD/TCPU611mftkQtyn2iSJEZUKwSEY7H0YFZUNSJ2ysBf3mNLfAXLixU=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:d8c8:: with SMTP id l8mr4715525ilo.259.1585327966843; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAK76PrmKVKXhPpcH6eq=f5O_rE0k0z-8dZouDeZddBbznftZPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+sJUcRGak+yqyEyL36EhLLfqYWwWVuPjDFTwGz5jv_55y9jw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUcRGak+yqyEyL36EhLLfqYWwWVuPjDFTwGz5jv_55y9jw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <aris@ariskou.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:52:51 +0100 (CET)
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAK76PrmRGhJ3aqLqiD2q_q8c+n0EgF1QzVmfNJ9zKxtyZxKXdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK76PrmRGhJ3aqLqiD2q_q8c+n0EgF1QzVmfNJ9zKxtyZxKXdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>, dominique barthel <dominique.barthel@orange.com>, "Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" <georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000050fc5b05a1d8ee53"
X-ContactOffice-Account: com:113819248
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/XP1HJ3NbwZ84R6DFbxZZazqs6ks>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Remaining issues on draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension
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: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:53:01 -0000

Hello Ines,

Thank you very much for the feedback and confirmations.

We have addressed them and we have uploaded
draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-08 with all the changes.
Please find the responses inline.

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:59 PM Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Aris,
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:24 PM Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <aris@ariskou.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Two small issues remain:
>>
>> a) Compression of the PS IPv6 addresses.
>> Rahul brought this up in his review, we mentioned that this was proposed
>> before, implemented and then re-removed because of the plan to have a draft
>> that performs compression on all RPL control traffic packets (following
>> Pascal's and Dominique's advice).
>> *Question: is there any chance this has changed and we might want to
>> perform compression on the PS field specifically after all?*
>>
>
> I think the compression can take place in a separate draft.
>

OK, great, we agree. So we'll leave this as is for now.


>
>> b) Change of the context of the PS NSA object from a constraint to a
>> metric.
>> Following  Dominique's suggestion we changed it from a constraint to a
>> recorded (R=1), partial (P=1) metric (C=0).
>> The issue is that we are extending MRHOF and MRHOF supports the use of a
>> single metric for computing the rank.
>> It is true that the PS NSA object is not used for rank calculation, and
>> we have clarified this.
>> However, there might be still a conflict or a point to be clarified.
>> See in MRHOF Section 2 Terminology
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6719.html#section-2>:
>> "Selected metric:  The metric chosen for path selection by the network
>> operator.  MRHOF supports using a single metric for path selection."
>>
>
> Maybe you could add this to the section 4 and explain how the extending
> MRHOF address this point.
>

We have added an extra explanation in section 4, modifying the related text
from MRHOF Section 2.
We think it should be clear now.


>
>> VS our draft Section 5.1 "Usage"
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-07#section-5.1>
>> :
>> "It is important that the PS does not affect the calculation of the rank
>> through candidate neighbors.  It is only used with the CA OF to remove
>> nodes which do not fulfill the CA OF criteria from the candidate neighbor
>> list."
>> *Question: Is this sufficient in terms of explanation?*
>>
>
> Section 5 is clear to me.
>

Great, so this is also clear.


>
> Thank you,
>
> Ines.
>

Again, thanks a lot!

Best,
Aris and Georgios


>
>>
>> We would really appreciate answers on these, if possible of course,
>> before the ROLL meeting so that we can update/finalize the drafts.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Aris & Georgios
>>
>>
>>