Re: [Roll] Last Call on MOP for AODV-RPL

Hi Ines,

I think it is better to assign AODV_RPL using 5. Not sure why just because
not much used  P2P_RPL we change to another protocol, is this option taken
often in IETF WGs.

Best Regards
AB

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:59 AM Ines Robles <mariainesrobles=
40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Please let us know by 16th Oct if you have some objection to assign MOP 4
> to AODV-RPL.
>
> So far, we have these options (you can find them in the thread [1]):
>
> *Option 1: Keep the current MOP for AODV-RPL => MOP = 5
>
> * Option 2: Assign MOP 4 (P2P RPL) to AODV-RPL:
>     -Action Points with this:
>         - IANA Considerations: request to add aodv-rpl as a reference in
> the registry.
>         - A new section that talks about how the reuse is ok, and any
> consequences of overlapping.  A requirement to not use both variations
> (P2P-RPL and AODV-RPL) in the same network would be fine too.
>        - Are you aware of some deployment of P2P-RPL?
>
> *Option 3: Allocate a new MOP, deprecate MOP 4 and reuse it later on.
>
> Please let us know your thoughts on this,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ines and Dominique.
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HaqbaOhGzM5hbHEL7rpgEgskqUY/
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:58 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> [Added the draft name to the subject to benefit my filters. ;-) ]
>>
>> Pascal:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I asked the same question (about aodv-rpl replacing/obsoleting rfc6997)
>> when I did my review [1] — more than two years ago!  But sadly received no
>> real reply from the WG — so we moved ahead with the document as it is now.
>> Peter brought the question back in his IoT DIT review [2] earlier this
>> year, but again no discussion from the WG.
>>
>> It is clear to see that aodv-rpl uses some of the technology from rfc6997
>> and, as I understand it, a deployment would never include both.  The
>> question then is valid and I would love to see more interest this time
>> around.
>>
>> Just FYI — there would need to be some process behind a move to formally
>> replace rfc6997 (beyond updating the draft).  We can deal with that if we
>> need to.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/XXaPFyhqiUS_bpYSJT45UaLyeec/
>> [2]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/f2GUlTDX4ppY1GKjQFqS8930ZYI/
>>
>>
>> On October 6, 2021 at 2:29:30 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
>> pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org) wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> RPL AODV is close to completion, congrats to the authors!
>>
>> Now, there’s the question of the MOP and 2 options, reuse the
>> experimental one for P2P RPL, or take another.
>>
>>
>>
>> Right now, the draft takes 5 and P2P has 4 (
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#mop)
>>
>>
>>
>> My observation is that P2P is the experiment that leads to AODV, so AODV
>> should deprecate it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have not heard of real deployments, and if that happened, I do not
>> expect a mix of devices that would create confusion.
>>
>> So would that be OK to assign MOP 4 to RPL AODV?
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that we only have up to 6 to play with, and the multicast and
>> anycast supports are already on the cooking table.
>>
>>
>>
>> Keep safe,
>>
>>
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>