Re: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18.txt

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On April 15, 2020 at 10:31:47 PM, Rahul Jadhav wrote:


Rahul:

Hi!


This change seems ok.  However, please keep in mind that this document
is already in the RFC Editor's queue...which in general means that we
shouldn't be changing it too much/often.


This is the new text you added:

   Value 195 represents 'E' and 'A' bit in RPL Status to be set as per
   Figure 3 of [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves] with the lower 6 bits with
   value 3 indicating 'Moved' as per Table 1 of [RFC8505].

I have a couple of comments:

1. [nit/minor] "'E' and 'A' bit in RPL Status to be set as per Figure
3"  The figure shows how the fields are placed in the RPL Status, not
how/when to set the bits.

2. [minor] "with the lower 6 bits with value 3"  This is technically
correct, but I had to read it a couple of times because the
combination of "bits" and "value" makes it sound as if bit 3 may be
set.

3. [major] Add a Normative reference to rfc8505.


Suggestion>
   An RPL Status of 195 represents the 'E' and 'A' bits set
   ([I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves]), and a Value of 3 ('Moved') as per Table 1
   of [RFC8505].


One more nit in Figure 3:  s/RPL  Status/RPL Status



Thanks!

Alvaro.



> Since unaware-leaves to coming close to closure, I thought now is the time to
> make the update to this draft (it was in cross-ref with unaware-leaves).
> We have a value for RPL Status Moved in DCO. And it is 195. The update
> explains this.
>
> Any feedback/comment is most appreciated.
>
> References:
> 1. [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage
> 2. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/cxyoy9uUtWQoUsHc0ge8VUx-6KY/
> 3. Why 195? https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/why-RPL-Status-195.png