Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Rahul

I believe that you need to indicate that the status is a RPL Status and refer to section 6.5.1. of RPL "  Format of the DAO-ACK Base Object".  I'm sure Alvaro will propose an improvement but my knee jerk:

Before:

Status: Indicates the completion status.  Section 12.5 of	[I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves] defines the status values.  A value of	0 is defined as unqualified acceptance.  A value of 1 is defined  as "No routing-entry for the indicated Target found".

After: 

Status: RPL Status indicating the completion. The RPL Status is defined in section 6.5.1. of  [RFC 6550] and updated in 
section 6.3 of [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves].  This specification adds the RPL rejection value ('E' flag set and 'A' flag not set) of 1, defined  as "No routing-entry for the indicated Target found".

Works?

Take care;

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rahul Jadhav <[e-mail]>
> Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2020 13:43
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Routing
> Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Deprecating DCO status
> 
> Hi Pascal, Alvaro,
> 
> I am mostly clear on the changes required. Please find attached an HTML-diff
> for the suggested changes.
> The only concern for me was if we remove the registry where would the Status
> 1 indicating "No routing-entry for the indicated Target found".
> But I see that unaware-leaves has made an update to its IANA section to
> include this status. So it works.
> Thus, I am referencing unaware-leaves for Status values.
> 
> Regards,
> Rahul
> 
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 14:44, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Rahul:
> >
> >
> >
> > Attracting your attention on the particular point below in Alvaro’s AD review
> of unaware leaves:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > So we should update the NPDAO draft and remove that entry shouldn't
> we?
> >
> > > > Note that NPDAO is already in missref because of this draft
> >
> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C310
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Also, the specification of the DAO-ACK needs to be changed to at
> > > least make it
> >
> > > clear that the "DCO-ACK Status" field refers to the "RPL Status".
> >
> > >
> >
> > > About deprecating the registry...  We should ask IANA what to do:
> > > they already
> >
> > > created the registry, but the efficient-npdao hasn't been published
> > > as an
> >
> > > RFC.  I don't know if we just delete §6.2 or if we have to formally
> > > deprecate the
> >
> > > registry (possible in this document).
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Please ack to this to make sure we're in sync before asking IANA.
> >
> >
> >
> > The change Alvaro and I want to make in the efficient npdao draft is
> > that the DCO status is now of the same type as the RPL status in DAO
> > ACK, and should be specified as such in
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18#section
> > -4.3.4
> >
> > Which means that we do not need the registry that we ask for in
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18#page-17
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you agree?
> >
> >
> >
> > Keep safe!
> >
> >
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> >