Re: [Roll] RFC6553 ?
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 12 March 2020 02:59 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 9DF7B3A0843 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 9xwZX_MX6XXR for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C3DF3A0838 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34977548049 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:59:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 280FA440040; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:59:29 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:59:29 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200312025929.GA63828@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20200312002017.GP54522@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <BM1PR01MB40207DA8F29DDB2E771AA61FA9FD0@BM1PR01MB4020.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BM1PR01MB40207DA8F29DDB2E771AA61FA9FD0@BM1PR01MB4020.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/ZqwzmBfLz-Z7oNNu4GwYgz-231c>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RFC6553 ?
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:59:36 -0000
Argh... ok. And 0x23 was even a line earlier in IANA.
Somewhat of a strance process to deprecate in IANA before useofrplinfo
is RFC. Or could at least have said ("DEPRECATED, see 0x23)
Oh well.
Thanks for helping the blind.
Cheers
Toerless
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 01:15:40AM +0000, Rahul Jadhav wrote:
>
>
> RPL Option (DEPRECATED) [RFC6553]
>
> Couldn't find quickly an explanation for this.
>
> Can anyone fill me in, pls. ?
>
> [RJ] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-36#section-4.2 updates RFC6553 RPL Option type value from 0x63 to 0x23. The section provides good reasoning for the update. Hope it helps.
>
> Specifically: In my ANIMA ACP draft i tried to unwind all those RPL TLAs
> like RPI and that had me include a sentence about RFC6553 being one RPI
> option, only to the extend that we do not want to use it though (informational),
> so i hope thats fine whether or not RFC6553 is not recommended anymore
> in general.
>
> Thanks
> Toerless
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
--
---
tte@cs.fau.de
- [Roll] RFC6553 ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Roll] RFC6553 ? Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] RFC6553 ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Roll] RFC6553 ? Carsten Bormann