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

[Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Aris,
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:24 PM Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <[e-mail]>
> 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
>>
>>
>>