Re: [Roll] Agenda for Monday (Re: MOP==7 live discussion )

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Questions tracked here: https://codimd.ietf.org/roll_MOP_20200921?both

The 2 hours are reserved just in case, I hope everything is solved before
the 2 hours :)

br, Ines




On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:34 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Alvaro,
>
>
>
> I cannot believe we’ll need 2 hours. But certainly we can start with the
> high level discussions on how this impacts the 3 drafts, before we dive in
> how to treat RFC 8138 with MOP 7.
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* lundi 21 septembre 2020 14:51
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>om>; [e-mail];
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>ca>; Ines Robles <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: Agenda for Monday (Re: MOP==7 live discussion )
>
>
>
> Hi!
>
>
>
> I can’t stay the whole 2 hours…so I want to bash the agenda to add another
> question at the top.
>
>
>
> () Should the MOP 7 Updates to rfc6550 be part of the turnon,
> unaware-leaves, useofrplinfo drafts?  I believe the answer is no, and I
> would like to make the case on the call.
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW, on (3), unaware-leaves says that the RUL is not expected to support
> rfc8138.   Not expected is not the same as saying that they never will send
> compressed data…
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
> On September 21, 2020 at 7:22:26 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
> [e-mail]) wrote:
>
> All very good questions, Michael,
>
> And it seems that we are converging.
>
> I read the quasi-suggestion that we align the default for MOP 7 to whether
> 6LoWPAN HC is running on the medium? Looks good.
>
> I have one last question, how does this discussion impact useofrpl and
> unaware-leaves, since they both define flags in the RPL DODAG config
> option. Should we converge the language? Do they all update RPL?
>
> Talk to you all in a few hours,
>
> Pascal
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: lundi 21 septembre 2020 02:31
> > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>om>; [e-mail]; Ines
> > Robles <[e-mail]>om>; Alvaro Retana
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Agenda for Monday (Re: MOP==7 live discussion )
> >
> >
> > okay, here is my summary of the issues that are outstanding for
> roll-turnon-
> > rfc8138.
> > I am writing this in the hope that I've captured everything.
> >
> > 1) Will RFC8138 be enabled for MOP==7? For what media?
> > I see that my notion that it should be undefined is not reasonable, and
> I
> > step back from this.
> >
> > 2) In what way does the format of the DIO Base Object depend upon the
> MOP
> > value? It seems that we need to update 6550 to say something.
> >
> > 3) While RUL document mandates that RULs must support 8138, it is not
> > clear to me if RULs can operate in a pre-8138 network. What if they
> > send 8138 compression?
> > It may be that none of the compressions that 8138 creates
> > will ever be emitted by a RUL, since they are all about IPIP compression
> > and RH3 compression, but I haven't checked.
> >
> > 4) we seem to be fine for 802.15.4 networks of all sorts.
> > I suspect that we are okay for all the other layers (BTLE, DECT, BACnet)
> > that leverage rfc4944 through the various upgrades. But, we are sure?
> > What happens on devices with multiple interfaces of different types?
> > Maybe this is an RFC8138 issue really.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting
> )
> > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> >
> >
> >
>
>