Re: [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDD83A0DC6 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 04:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XLN0V8mpcke2 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 04:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x935.google.com (mail-ua1-x935.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::935]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8533A0DA2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 04:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x935.google.com with SMTP id b2so1950954uas.13 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 04:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=UenxIbcfFGSRY5rWQsJsFQJe6aLR4fUX2pElpn4n9xc=; b=NemlrlETlfveWJ7vKNFvuRxxvnKCA+WcZ6BEIAv2jeKNdDFH/PrOke4QKVEyYccPfj GLklh/zHaZF9U5AhvFBZRjenocEwmTbRAf0TpTZ1qO6xWK2coIJIWBtW2k5aawynP6on e8CN2NCuEFSc4FnUNg4VvGtnYD1BYUOxHZom12LFV//GTOYWvDw0bjAFQvppJ2B+yHlv DT3CYU7O3Y/V92mA/uP0mNFkC0C1+Dh/GeU/ZDzNiGpGKRlBqrX4MQVoFG+IfS2TAsiq FuqGT7qAN+g6oejPQtrzXyq7nb++lA8/OBxV1cVhZWcikt3ObAsanZQzNl/rQG7S7nNt Xs9w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=UenxIbcfFGSRY5rWQsJsFQJe6aLR4fUX2pElpn4n9xc=; b=NrS9jraGxbIxD/ocxVHuVHjrVhDrXQ27868PKidvpUNjHeNFa+zsXk2+LsHQkDv7k3 Ehl0bmcDa9jJpxWggPbemNc0f+99XpzSiswrirBYFfDFAH2Y8VAVFoWwzpr69kcCFbhz ca4PiAB/FNqbFPK2kYzTfUvqy1QwlWPaCUOvupjKsVpndnl766zasHKtPo/nz3j2jaTg DZBZIuWHq7sNN98RUim2YPvUP0Itb+d2RNbOx08UBbgVT4zzJqcd5TQctUuCXno9M2/z 1NhTIGX9msa0kBAAJc/s3dPtsN9IKaDg3S0lmBNIL9ZcsoabdLye8KEeenikcVxsmqbI SACw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3mdZx2Nj4lHZpDulty5L7R+oOqdHRme7+XTec4yQk/17UhqJmP Vkorp/50uAQnhE2YHkRBRqYbHzxV//bzNtFsn50adncgE1M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vtXctXErwQfpHfCwmg9AUNz1g5bDadDYHk6tuHe?= =?utf-8?q?dw61o36soBiaxAsgg10EwBwgolAay1P+wl/Ds5N6M38Uzvo=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:20ad:: with SMTP id y13mr5095278ual.46.1584012837244; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 04:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: =?utf-8?q?=3CBM1PR01MB4020DDE62CBD04217E48C180A9FD0=40BM1PR01MB4?= =?utf-8?q?020=2EINDPRD01=2EPROD=2EOUTLOOK=2ECOM=3E?=
In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CBM1PR01MB4020DDE62CBD04217E48C180A9FD0=40BM1PR01MB?= =?utf-8?q?4020=2EINDPRD01=2EPROD=2EOUTLOOK=2ECOM=3E?=
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:33:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUcy2ituaRhg1Cbq06gYbqSLaQHqhDuF-YNRVAELovVxMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007bd4bb05a0a6ba73"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/bpL3DI3Y4CUtJomYXXWR5hkz-SU>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPI Option Type in useofrplinfo
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:34:09 -0000

Thank you very much Rahul for your review, please find in-line some
comments.

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:04 AM Rahul Jadhav <nyrahul@outlook.com> wrote:

> While reading section related to RPI Option Type, I had some doubts:
>
> Section 4.3 states,
> "In the case of rebooting, the node (6LN or 6LR) does not remember the
> RPL Option Type (i.e., whether or not the flag is set), so DIO
> messages sent by the node would be sent with the flag unset until a
> DIO message is received with the flag set, indicating the new RPI
> value. The node will use the value 0x23 if it supports this feature."
>
> [RJ] A node can initiate a DIO only when it decides to attach itself to
> the Instance/DAG based on DIO received from the upstream node. Thus a
> 6LR/6LN __will always have a ref value to use from its parent's DIO__. The
> para states, ".... so DIO messages sent by the node would be sent with the
> flag unset until a DIO message is received with the flag set.....". This
> may be incorrect because the node will always have a flag ref from config
> option from DIO rcvd from upstream node.
>

[IR] Thank you for pointing it out. Thus, in case of rebooting the node
waits to receive a DIO (or it may send a DIS msge?), and when it receives a
DIO, then it can trigger one.


> Subsequently, in the same para, the text says, "The node will use the
> value 0x23 if it supports this feature." Do you mean even if the flag in
> Config option is not set it can use 0x23 if it supports the feature?
>

[IR] No, the flag in Config option indicates when then 0x23 RPI option Type
can be safely used. This means, the flag is going to indicate the value of
Option Type that the network is using for the RPI Option

The correct? sentence could be: "The node will use the value 0x23 if the
network supports this feature (DODAG Configuration option flag set)" .


> This doesn't seem right! Contradicts with other stmts in the same section
> for e.g., "Thus, when a node join to a network will know which value to
> use."
>
[IR] yes, which know the value based on the flag in the config option.


> From my point of view, this para is not needed since there is no impact on
> 6LR/6LN for this flag because of the reboot operation.
>

[IR] Thank you, we could delete the para if people/other coauthors agree.
But in case that we want to specify the case on rebooting, would it the
following make sense?

"In the case of rebooting, the node (6LN or 6LR) does not remember the
RPI Option Type (i.e., whether or not the flag is set), so the node will
not trigger DIO
messages until a DIO message is received indicating the RPI
value to be used. The node will use the value 0x23 if the network supports
this feature."

Regarding the terminology: The draft terms, the new option type as "RPI
> Option Type" (value 0x23) and the old "RPL Option Type" (value 0x63). Is
> this correct?
>

[IR] we define RPI here as follows:

RPL Packet Information (RPI): The abstract information that [RFC6550
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6550>]
   places in IP packets.  The term is commonly used, including in this
   document, to refer to the RPL Option [RFC6553
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6553>] that transports that

   abstract information in an IPv6 Hob-by-Hop Header

Yes, with RPI Option Type we refer to the RPL Option described in 6553

Thank you very much Rahul for constantly helping us to improve our work :)

Best,

Ines.

>
> Thanks,
> Rahul
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>