[Roll] Review of draft-ietf-roll-mopex-06
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 02 May 2023 21:11 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.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 28985C14CF12; Tue, 2 May 2023 14:11:24 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mibaNFdLlTp1; Tue, 2 May 2023 14:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9001C14CF15; Tue, 2 May 2023 14:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-63b64a32fd2so4934281b3a.2; Tue, 02 May 2023 14:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683061881; x=1685653881; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date :mime-version:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=MLzBukFbSL3RpeyiEWSDy+tDeAyoeYbWUgxdl/WO+YU=; b=Msm3tQ6iQB/v5hffidMleO/+7FFJeuJ9PH5aTrzICFx8ZAimCAUl9P8MvYwBO5adpx 1Rra7dFp4EDCEAyvD2pCQ4cJQINAPg1npsn7GUKSi/fKslfoBVzVje3Uz09i3vZYrjWT sbt0Gx32KWbM9xj/2fL6up8XF8u9eRTsRnb0p4WWErX020Ewt64QH5JhGO+TvvK8aBj+ 1mMH6v7JTmjtJakeQ2DHJ04gEQfHjf9j+qtUoi7SfO9qq2LhSaeRyqSh1HPlHa3anMSU W7p5+9Ad4jWb3fF0Fj6GMw0dQk1CJ/Hv/T7o/mmg3qYtNz0y+WHgI7pHHLrBlzmuMYR5 QEiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683061881; x=1685653881; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date :mime-version:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=MLzBukFbSL3RpeyiEWSDy+tDeAyoeYbWUgxdl/WO+YU=; b=EL5wusrHSl21V1EPl93gOrCPmR+uWlguXON2JV5IJrSsDDcPFx3k50omM1fPB7Mr7a x5YEa8MKmpIVIwVArrt4vTYWdY/uUvKQs4uYrEG0PJZyyYWDzdZYzhmN+K3ulNFmJKph fq0gt2pBu0N2BMZwVqUP2HxDiLDxKYaM+9zPp4bSlALS98gdiQ1USdH3zv5VhPCoWX5A P/8H8Sk4mYDGPZg55XPoWcMtlIu8Mc/XWhoJy0F+ZqBU6Bq7ty/3ejcQXr6LIWv4dEeP NZRIinJnA5fXtEazmlYzhjKImxFQe5Z+uIuC9tlcwZsFN7szsh//6WPGPuYzM+Z2exfh ikWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDw1DjXL+R6mFf+TI7z6xqRUzb+ta7RX5Y5/q751J0o2Xuvu7Dsn goAYNnBk9NoF/msvWKcnMgPuEuOIBR9xwRLzFNmpRbIB
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5b72yLgb3Pizl5X8vOIM/pC3aR6WUpaXWoAo+dZIvpNA3l4VD4OvEifsdUcZWQU1Y3XDCz7577gTizJ9yy4TI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:997:b0:63d:24e4:f9c with SMTP id u23-20020a056a00099700b0063d24e40f9cmr29395589pfg.17.1683061880237; Tue, 02 May 2023 14:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 2 May 2023 14:11:19 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 14:11:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESszb38e-WaiMdTVjtZqvZweCxB=J054CsK9bsRzWA5ogfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-roll-mopex@ietf.org
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/_3m1pKzut7k5hl3LLo7ZvH82Juc>
Subject: [Roll] Review of draft-ietf-roll-mopex-06
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 02 May 2023 21:11:24 -0000
Hi! I volunteered to look at this document at the meeting in Japan -- here's my review. In general, I think it looks good. But there are several clarifications and modifications needed. See comments in-line. I also submitted a PR in the GitHub repository including some editorial suggestions: https://github.com/roll-wg/mopex/pull/9 For the Chairs: this document should be marked as replacing draft-ietf-roll-mopex-cap (along with the existing tag for draft-ietf-roll-capabilities). Thanks! Alvaro. [Line numbers from idnits.] ... 73 1. Introduction ... 91 This document further extends the RPL Control Option syntax to handle 92 generic flags. The primary aim of these flags is to define the 93 behavior of a node not supporting the given control type. If a node 94 does not support a given RPL Control Option, there are following 95 possibilities: [] This extension feels out of place in this document since it is not used for anything related to MOPex. Also, the Capabilities option (draft-ietf-roll-capabilities) is not an Extended Option...but that draft defines Capabilities TLVs which follow the same format (?!). What are these extended options used for? Why do they need to be defined in this document? 97 Strip off the option 99 Copy the option as-is 101 Ignore the message containing this option 103 Let the node join in only as a 6LN to this parent [minor] The specification is done later, so this list doesn't need to be included here. [minor] s/6LN/leaf 6LN needs to be expanded, but it also carries the 6LoWPAN-related connotation. If not "leaf" then maybe RUL (?). Expand and reference rfc9010. 105 1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology 107 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 108 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 109 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. [major] Use the rfc8174 template. [major] I know that later the text says that "For the sake of readability, all the known relevant terms are repeated in this section." However, the definitions don't all match what is in rfc6550. To avoid this type of issue, define only new terms and point to rfc6550 for the rest. 111 MOP: Mode of Operation. Identifies the mode of operation of the RPL 112 Instance as administratively provisioned at and distributed by the 113 DODAG root. 115 MOPex: Extended MOP: This document extends the MOP values over a 116 bigger range. This extension of MOP is called MOPex. 118 DAO: DODAG Advertisement Object. An RPL message used to advertise 119 the target information to establish routing adjacencies. [major] A DAO is a "Destination Advertisement Object" (not a "DODAG Advertisement Object"). Note that (1) §6.4/rfc6550 defines the DAO as "used to propagate destination information Upward along the DODAG", which is not exactly what is mentioned here, and (2) the Termonology section of rfc6550 simply points at §6.4: DAO: Destination Advertisement Object (see Section 6.4) A simple extension + pointer may be a good option here too. 121 DIO: DODAG Information Object. An RPL message initiated by the root 122 and used to advertise the network configuration information. [major] As above, the Terminology section of rfc6550 only says this: DIO: DODAG Information Object (see Section 6.3) Note that §6.3/rfc6550 says that a DIO "carries information that allows a node to discover a RPL Instance, learn its configuration parameters, select a DODAG parent set, and maintain the DODAG." Again, not exactly the same. 124 Current parent: Parent 6LR node before switching to the new path. [minor] This term is not used anywhere in the text. 126 This document uses the terminology described in [RFC6550]. For the 127 sake of readability, all the known relevant terms are repeated in 128 this section. 130 2. Requirements for this document 132 Following are the requirements considered for this documents: 134 REQ1: MOP extension. The 3-bits MOP as defined in [RFC6550] is fast 135 depleting. An MOP extension needs to extend the possibility 136 of adding new MOPs in the future. 138 REQ2: Backwards compatibility. The new options and new fields in 139 the DIO message should be backward compatible i.e. if there 140 are nodes that support old MOPs they could still operate in 141 their RPL Instances. [major] "new options and new fields in the DIO message should be backward compatible" I don't think this requirement was completely met. Even if the MOPex-value can be 0-6, a node that supports old MOPs (and hasn't been upgraded) won't be able to operate because it will see MOP 7. See the comment in §3.2 about adding text to point this out. 143 3. Extended MOP Control Message Option 145 This document reserves the existing MOP value 7 to be used as an 146 extender. DIO messages with an MOP value of 7 MUST refer to the 147 Extended MOP (MOPex) option in the DIO message. [] Later on the term "base DIO MOP" is used. Take the opportunity here to differentiate between the MOP in the DIO and the one in the option. I think that calling the new one MOPex should be enough -- IOW, no need to introduce "base DIO MOP". [major] "MUST refer to" To "refer" doesn't sound like a good normative action. I assume you mean something like this: A DIO message with a MOP value of 7 indicates that the MOP for RPL instance is contained in the Extended MOP (MOPex) option. 149 0 1 2 150 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 151 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--------------- 152 | Type = TODO | Opt Length | OP-value 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--------------- 155 Figure 1: Extended MOP Option 157 The option length value MUST be less than or equal to 2. An option 158 length value of zero is invalid and the implementation MUST silently 159 ignore the DIO on receiving a value of zero. [major] "OP-value" I assume you meant "MOP-value", but that is not consistent with "Extended-MOP-value" as mentioned in §7.3. Recommendation: use "MOPex-value". [major] "length value MUST be less than or equal to 2" This seems to indicate that the MOPex-value can be anything between 0-65535. However, it is not specified how the representation should work. For example, if the length is 1 only the lower bits are represented. Is that what is intended? 161 3.1. Handling MOPex 163 The MOPex option MUST be used only if the base DIO MOP is 7. If the 164 base DIO MOP is 7 and if the MOPex option is not present then the DIO 165 MUST be silently ignored. If the base DIO MOP is less than 7 then 166 MOPex MUST NOT be used. In case the base MOP is 7 and if the MOPex 167 option is present, then the implementation MUST use the final MOP 168 value from the MOPex. [] See my comment above about using "base DIO MOP". [] Similar comment about "final MOP". It was already established that the MOPex is the new MOP. [major] What happens if the MOP = 7 but the MOPex option is invalid? 170 Note that [RFC6550] allows a node that does not support the received 171 MOP to still join the network as a leaf node. This semantics 172 continues to be true even in the case of MOPex. [major] I'm assuming that all other general assumptions about the MOP also apply to the MOPex. Even if it maybe goes without saying, please say it. ;-) 174 3.2. Use of values 0-6 in the MOPex option 176 The MOPex option could also be allowed to re-use the values 0-6, 177 which have been used for MOP so far. The use of current MOPs in 178 MOPex indicates that the MOP is supported with an extended set of 179 semantics e.g., the capability options [I-D.ietf-roll-capabilities]. [major] "could also be allowed" -- this sounds like a proposal, an idea, but not as a specification. If this the direction?? [major] "indicates that the MOP is supported with an extended set of semantics" OTOH, this sounds like a firm statement...but it is really an example. Suggestion> The MOPex option can include values 0-6 to indicate support for the existing MOPs, as specified in [RFC6550] and [RFC6997]. Any extended set of semantics or options for these MOPs is out of scope for this document -- see [I-D.ietf-roll-capabilities] as an example of possible capabilities. [major] Even without additional options, a node that doesn't support this specification won't be able to operate if the MOP is 7 and the MOPex is 0-6. Please add some text to indicate that backwards compatibility (to nodes wanting support MOPs 0-6) can only be achieve if they support this specification. Otherwise they will only be able to join as a leaf. 181 4. Extending RPL Control Options ... 186 0 1 2 187 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 188 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+----------- 189 |X| OptionType| Option Length |Opt Flags|J|I|C| Option Data 190 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+----------- 192 Figure 2: Extended RPL Option Format 194 New fields in extended RPL Control Message Option Format: 196 'X' bit in Option Type: Value 1 indicates that this is an extended 197 option. If the 'X' flag is set, a 1-byte Option Flags follows the 198 Option Length field. [minor] Because of the space, the figure only says "Opt Flags", not "Option Flags". See comment below about this. 200 Option Length: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in 201 octets of the option, not including the Option Type and Length 202 fields. Option Flags and variable length Option Data fields are 203 included in the length. [] You don't need to respecify the Option Length field. The extra text in the second sentence is new, but the definition is not different. If you want to keep this description, then please add also one for Option Type. [minor] Consider changing Figure 2 to only show the Option Flags field and then describe its contents here. [major] How should the unassigned flags be treated? Should they be managed by IANA? How? [nit] The flags are called bits... For consistency, either call the field "Option Bits" or the individual bits "flags". [] The flags only apply if the Option Type is unknown. Perhaps introduce the specification by saying that -- and to avoid duplication. Suggestion> The flags specified below apply only when the Option Type is unknown or unsupported. I'm assuming that "not understood" translates to "unknown or unsupported". 205 'J' (Join) bit in Option Flags: A node MUST join only as a 6LN if 206 the Option Type is not understood. [] Suggestion> 'J' (Join) flag: If set, the node MAY only join the network as a leaf. 208 'C' (Copy) bit in Option Flags: A node that does not understand 209 the Option Type MUST copy the Option while generating the 210 corresponding message. E.g., if a 6LR receives a DIO message with 211 an unknown Option with 'C' bit set and if the 6LR chooses to 212 accept this node as the preferred parent then the node MUST copy 213 this option in the subsequent DIO message it generates. 214 Alternatively, if the 'C' flag is unset the node MUST strip off 215 the option and process the message. [] Suggestion: 'C' (Copy) flag: If set, the node MUST copy... [minor] 6LR: see the comment above about the 6LN. s/6LR/RPL router. 217 'I' (Ignore) bit in Option Flags: A node that does not understand 218 the Option Type MUST ignore this whole message if the 'I' bit is 219 set. If the 'I' bit is set then the value of 'J' and 'C' bits are 220 irrelevant and the message MUST be ignored. [] Suggestion> 'I' (Ignore) flag: If set, the node MUST ignore the whole message regardless of the setting of the J and C flags. [major] How should the flags be interpreted if the Option Type is known? [major] Some considerations should be described related to how/when the flags should be set. For example, not setting the J flag would allow a node to join the DODAG even if it potentially doesn't fully support whatever the option contains. Is there a class of information that requires the node to only be a leaf vs a RPL router? ... 241 If a node receives an unknown Option without 'X' flag set then the 242 node MUST ignore the option and process the message. The option MUST 243 be treated as if J=0, C=0, I=0. [major] The first sentence is not a change to what rfc6550 already specifies. No need to specify it again. ... 257 7. IANA Considerations 259 7.1. Mode of operation: MOPex 261 IANA is requested to assign a new Mode of Operation, named "MOPex" 262 for MOP extension under the RPL registry. The value of 7 is to be 263 assigned from the "Mode of Operation" space [RFC6550] [minor] Given that the MOP space is being extended, it would be a good idea to add "this document" as a reference to the registry. At the same time, the reference to rfc9008 should be removed. [major] rfc9008 changed the status of MOP 7 from Unassigned (= available) to Reserved ("not available for assignment" [RFC8126]). To assign the value, this document should formally Update rfc9008. [minor] Also, make it clear that the reference to 7 should be "this document" ONLY. IOW, the current references in the registry to RFC9008, RFC9010, and RFC9035 should be removed. Suggestion> This document updated [RFC9008] to remove the reservation on Mode of Operation value 7. IANA is requested to assign the Mode of Operation value 7 to MOPex, as shown in Table 2. As shown there, all other references related to value 7 are to be removed. IANA is also requested to replace the reference to [RFC9008] in the overall registry with a reference to this document. ... 286 7.3. New Registry for Extended-MOP-value 288 IANA is requested to create a registry for the extended-MOP-value 289 (MOPex). This registry should be located in TODO. New MOPex values 290 may be allocated only by an IETF review. Currently no values are 291 defined by this document. Each value is tracked with the following 292 qualities: [major] "allocated only by an IETF review" It looks like the space is big! Should all of it use the same registration policy? Should there be/does it make sense to have a Private Use or Experimental range, or maybe a First Come First Served range? [major] "Currently no values are defined by this document." §3.2 says that reusing 0-6 could be allowed -- which means that there are values assigned. [major] If 0-6 are reused, how will the two registries be kept in sync? There are two values in the MOP registry that haven't been assigned. Maybe there's a way for IANA to refer to the other registry, instead of requiring double registration. Maybe that could be done by indicating that 0-6 are Reserved, and adding a note in the Description field pointing at the other registry. In any case, something to talk to IANA about. 294 * MOPex value 296 * Description 298 * Defining RFC [major] Include a table to show how the registry should look like. 300 7.4. Change in RPL Control Option field [major] The X bit basically changes the meaning/name of the Option Types 0x80-0xFF to "Extended Control Options". Instead of a new registry, the existing RPL Control Message Options registry should be modified. Doing it this way avoids changing the definition of Option Type and having to formally Update rfc6550. Suggestion> IANA is requested to modify the RPL Control Message Options registry to include an Extended Control Options range as shown in Table A. [Include Table A with columns: Range | Option Type | Reference 0x00-0x7F | Base Options | rfc6550 0x80-0xFF | Extended Options | [this document] IANA is also requested to add [this document] as a reference for this updated registry. ... 321 8. Security Considerations ... 328 Capabilities flag can reveal that the node has been upgraded or is 329 running a old feature set. This document assumes that the base 330 messages that carry these options are protected by RPL security 331 mechanisms and thus are not visible to a malicious node. [major] s/Capabilities flag/The use of MOP 7 [EoR -06]
- [Roll] Review of draft-ietf-roll-mopex-06 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Roll] Review of draft-ietf-roll-mopex-06 Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] Review of draft-ietf-roll-mopex-06 Alvaro Retana