[Roll] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-25: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 15 December 2020 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: roll@ietf.org
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE0E3A16F5; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:51:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves@ietf.org, roll-chairs@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, JADHAV Rahul <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, rahul.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <160806191542.14056.12076928149451139392@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:51:55 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/bnkGFypCfTnTILdANLlCKtfSRfc>
Subject: [Roll] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-25: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 19:51:55 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-25: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review and thank you to Carl Wallace for
performing it

** Section 6.1.  ROVRsz value.

Indicates the Size of the ROVR.  It SHOULD be 1,
      2, 3, or 4, indicating a ROVR size of 64, 128, 192, or 256 bits,
      respectively.  If a legacy Target Option is used, then the value
      must remain 0, as specified in [RFC6550].

-- Why are the values of ROVRsz not constrained with a MUST to 0 – 4?  What’s
the thinking on allowing undefined ROVR size values?  Or not specifying that
these values comes from:

-- If the values of ROVR are 1 – 4 why are 4 bits required, not 3 (i.e., 100 =

** Section 11.
Additionally, the trust model could include a role validation to
   ensure that the node that claims to be a 6LBR or a RPL Root is
   entitled to do so.

How does this role validation (verification of entitlement) work?