Re: [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo

Ines Robles <> Thu, 12 March 2020 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B6F3A08A5 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 SudZsb0RyQ1y for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F6043A087F for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i78so1545429vke.0 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=45UeZg8wjTX5pXInZ3ZgzOkMUmh3Vf1WRYj/FZAhvzc=; b=PDC9Vp7GvBa2TN5Qx7heyGxQWSVaBOaIQnfRIS0FzUQTXO6gkQvKnrDsUvi5eu0HG8 2Rm022IPSplGLcU57y5hceRiCLU0B3jJpX4r8FAzvJGdA/ydQ7Gdv5UKktrb7O7DlD41 NGH5eMg5hLngrb/3MWYep1qzk90OWgLzK1kz3nCIjoMWWfvTUsGb0ALKKObzFC9gkJcO cXxeB0xq3Rp02YHyAkIzweJr9CrTcrn3GFSvReCat9+5Ww+Ap2HqHtic1hau0KIaIzxm fqtONJDoVCWjaPvZT6DO1Yo5KLu3xUDTppV1ihS5VPI6gPqhj4JGd+yCq5f6B31ZomGI xinA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=45UeZg8wjTX5pXInZ3ZgzOkMUmh3Vf1WRYj/FZAhvzc=; b=qTg7HHhjJNS9xK0nrMoG+2BBSndlAigvgIaTkKkRjsMbB/CmJ0Ojq38aDvLzm3ZsjH BSM/TwVHEwnkWEiXh2wGkOINJ4sw9DMbrtbZxQNnriSlKAA56X+T9Ly/2OXxmgk/7wuh mSah7k+h+r1hFc85bf+cspx9j3k+STMZIck3IdH8a2xJF/3L0A7/chJy7saatt8vLZ/4 XDq/gbSsNU/k3mug+UoMrXJnOROI6uh0d6f0LSiwR51mM/x9NAqQYt0h66s/MTlrLd8X CDfvCISXzXGt/aSJV4BXgXbn8fdXjD0+E03GK9huiMYcdLcHAkxBkuS9IcrhR5IkjdhU hH4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1k6FgyikTyL1x8orrcQIcfc1MChLG5KYeU1JeeBI4Md7ZOAvPZ D1XXZg8eH9bIxOVKLyIT8a1yhsZyDDkxclQVVcg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtT3kAhn6q9mK1//UOoaDQA6e+2Wj2ByHoeRQQ3Ji6VeZuX7DQEThwA1qRZpz8KSzxiCnKejYIajB+ndok6FfU=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2947:: with SMTP id p68mr5222135vkp.43.1584018871568; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ines Robles <>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:13:55 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Rahul Jadhav <>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000284e4a05a0a8228b"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:14:42 -0000

Thank you very much Rahul! We'll fix it and post new version



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:08 PM Rahul Jadhav <> wrote:

> Thanks Ines. The updated text is more clear and in sync with other text in
> the section. Please find my resp inline.
> Best,
> Rahul
> [IR] Thank you, we could delete the para if people/other coauthors agree.
> But in case that we want to specify the case on rebooting, would it the
> following make sense?
> "In the case of rebooting, the node (6LN or 6LR) does not remember the
> RPI Option Type (i.e., whether or not the flag is set), so the node will
> not trigger DIO
> messages until a DIO message is received indicating the RPI
> value to be used. The node will use the value 0x23 if the network supports
> this feature."
> [RJ] Yes this para is more clear for me. Thanks.
> Regarding the terminology: The draft terms, the new option type as "RPI
> Option Type" (value 0x23) and the old "RPL Option Type" (value 0x63). Is
> this correct?
> [IR] we define RPI here as follows:
> RPL Packet Information (RPI): The abstract information that [RFC6550 <>]
>    places in IP packets.  The term is commonly used, including in this
>    document, to refer to the RPL Option [RFC6553 <>] that transports that
>    abstract information in an IPv6 Hob-by-Hop Header
> Yes, with RPI Option Type we refer to the RPL Option described in 6553
> [RJ] Great! Please also check the PR I raised on GitHub and use the
> changes if it makes sense.