IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25: (with COMMENT)

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Fri, 17 May 2019 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.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 8D4F31200D6; Fri, 17 May 2019 02:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
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 ArEB50Hbof5M; Fri, 17 May 2019 02:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x130.google.com (mail-it1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50BD1120075; Fri, 17 May 2019 02:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x130.google.com with SMTP id m3so7030691itl.1; Fri, 17 May 2019 02:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3qV1X3nPgTZdpHvnMNJqqGVt/047nrash3CAV1W8hmI=; b=GJ13z2OmUxon2FIkqzRqPcwLYvjt87/iwrTCk/1cULaYUNTwBu1SzCJSEHMqDYNMYt HxHH9B3sUrvrVKWW9BA5CQFtDgtZovsALgjx1U0pxTOJKRsr4TBw6nc2sIWj1L3bcK+E LwMqYXTXsBkKThKZpy/k20/q13EtcO0CO67GMGvCKONJLuMa+0mqNw9VMjRs9EAuOmYD EfenGcssMenNdkKXtTpS1I4MB7L6pKdR9NUXsyW3MZViaUVeK8Ud1iUjvN4dsqqMywkI csu19gWf1OaF5BpkP44fNTtlePybRaZRFa83r8aWFDYc/yd3NnaIU69APbtfefr0CaH9 Azbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3qV1X3nPgTZdpHvnMNJqqGVt/047nrash3CAV1W8hmI=; b=YcbHv4reMCbIzUi9ETQ59XewAWF3mw5HA3vOViBF98dDpCFCIOOqJNg5gaaztTChfp b+6kA9i3CM+adwKZLge4PhWZwd+AKT7uuotaDY+y5gAuc1Yw2YRcDNSUP6591vws1F+x jGjYMYmqJUTFpVFu5IhHvkOOSQd7aetD4x3TIGiSvyCVmD17fKT1ybJFWvuqIw/8Xoar p8kwmgqLTD2pKPnrlZGowF3l0ZPNBPzMgxQebD8Hnz2g47DpbbVRuqsnaSGAK9jIe/X7 QP5HiOFWIHO0rjl80xmCH5WRLfIyqAPHVzecSW22O6xCgXXW+qMd6/irWtfKZvK+29Mt UjAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW9pyNa4SjNKQko+zyeo2c1OC3LdXh8r8qlQ+USNsomy52mIxIR oT991rgwhMkim6LO5ydtDjSQFHweA0iBbFx+uVQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwuBtnh+/aHteWcDsp7a5vay6KlGNU0IOz9RlwUgIme12gf9owkWM22pCmntgmCCKR3derxYBCugrXLZkrrDXU=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:61d7:: with SMTP id s206mr15926itc.133.1558084430553; Fri, 17 May 2019 02:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155668484520.29014.7741405460230963379.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155668484520.29014.7741405460230963379.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 12:13:38 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUeVxRWpw558AGKMKqvmdf806QC0CsL1VHP=v7+Xhg8fuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo@ietf.org, Peter Van der Stok <consultancy@vanderstok.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, roll-chairs <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, roll <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000368a1058911cde7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/XolW1Dli6o6y9yIMWfKT37jiaO8>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25: (with COMMENT)
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, 17 May 2019 09:13:54 -0000

Hi Adam,

Thank you for your review. We have submitted a new version with
corrections. Please find answer in-line.

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:27 AM Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. I have only one minor
> comment.
>
> I'm a bit perplexed by the interplay between sections 3.1 and 3.3.
>
> Section 3.1 says:
>
> >  This change creates a flag day for existing networks which are
> >  currently using 0x63 as the RPI value.
>
> And then section 3.3 says:
>
> >  In order to avoid a Flag Day caused by lack of interoperation between
> >  new RPI (0x23) and old RPI (0x63) nodes, this section defines a flag
> >  in the DIO Configuration Option...
>
> Which leaves me wondering whether the net effect of this document does or
> does
> not create a flag day for networks. Please consider updating these
> sections to
> be consistent with each other.
>

Old text:  This change would otherwise create a flag day for existing
networks which are...


New Text: Without the signaling described below, this change would
otherwise create a flag day for existing networks which are currently using
0x63 as the RPI value.

Additionally, new text was added in Section 3.1.

Thanks,

The authors.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email