Re: [Roll] In what way is roll-unaware-leaves updating npdao?

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Just to make sure, we’re agreeing…right?

On October 6, 2020 at 2:18:41 PM, Michael Richardson ([e-mail])
wrote:


Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>  === Part 3: remaining comments (based on -18) ===

> ... 484 5.  Updating draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao

> [major] To me, Updating an RFC means that the implementations of that
> RFC should also implement this one.  In this case, there would be an
> expectation that all nodes that support the DCO would support the
> Non-Storing MOP as well.  Is that what is intended?

> Note that Updating is different than simply expecting the nodes that
> implement this specification to comply.

> [Personal opinion: I don't think a formal Update of
> draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao is needed.  As mentioned below, this
> document "extends"...]

1) I agree that we are extending, not updating.
It feels weird to update a document that is in the same cluster :-)

2) The text says:

[EFFICIENT-NPDAO] defines the DCO for RPL Storing Mode only, with a
link-local scope. This specification extends its use to the Non-
Storing MOP, whereby the DCO is sent unicast by the Root directly to
the RAN that injected the DAO message for the considered target.

If an RPL aware node supports RUL, then it has to support DCOs
even when operating in a Non-Storing MOP.

The document does NOT say that a node with RUL support has to support
Non-Storing MOPs.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide