Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18

Alvaro Retana <> Tue, 06 October 2020 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389963A1521; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MSP7vkT_LyrX; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43FDC3A1526; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ce10so19114121ejc.5; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 11:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oB8pqFuDRbNymrVNWkpS7aS6wizJa2aPRxG4MGTA/Ys=; b=XxlStEulAakyq5A7on5+GdRZiVzZCmkEHfYswmHw4SCj8mRoorlIqpdbmL4+8cABn7 kaK6G//Hvjoli661TYtjWWokQ1zod+WQ9Z3DQ/z+hAXSj6lO7WQQQ+ZBJQ2M6PGUelcR 7KUojt81VVxcYTV077Wv5nKi1EITJ2Xjtfs3juZ8c2AyuLuZgNvaIvyytrTNhSo08sYE MB0xV/hWV8WaxFtrBF+7XmgASQRF0HNunONilv73qlBNkggDFseET7bixZtHF+1tAP8W nhyTWvDllzkQQlGzvSZBOiu/vesDg+wme9e+Dv8m8WFkxyVt53BKq4aM04Yj0vHOK9pT nDNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oB8pqFuDRbNymrVNWkpS7aS6wizJa2aPRxG4MGTA/Ys=; b=b8tDFU+ngKZPMudj3kyOsbo4jZTm2yWTJJVMSpZBMBa0HMnvVDvYpzzeYEmEwoxB+6 iUp1v87QWmbAauELJAETIagcu5oI4iCLDEk4qWkRwFjMw1/kF9jGoId7mk8EZ0P8oSSw wWY0yiDfwB41t5Q9nmQ99pWXTRRXx2T4jFkKUaRj06R7bUIZNTlAjkRSeKjW/3FAP5q0 G26IkibTmjvALExU/CDrNFe306DO97JsyK18NfLMIskabWDfvA5eTNB1wZwn+e3DvWKY HKT3kFNUeF5/7Ky0wEQAbZI5yLuWVEpoWsv9OzHe9Cn+NRcFBKWvC3t/STi1KlppP6c8 ewLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532/6rTQ2NLGoS6O7ZOGCIZtUb4/HujV32ZvJs8oqgwkzT8HwuCm e/tiNPlEr9jkypEHbS60dSHPfqtabryCvBLcCB/55eT+
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwYI2lrJAcJhW/r8Y/zmO1LYErTsUv2L64TEbSn/RWDZptbdj+67O6jTkpNVaoA0A9r5aafEjvWB3rvgSKf/Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:490d:: with SMTP id b13mr938907ejq.122.1602009449533; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 11:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:37:29 -0400
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <29990.1602008535@localhost>
References: <> <> <> <29990.1602008535@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 14:37:29 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, Michael Richardson <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 18:37:46 -0000

On October 6, 2020 at 2:22:25 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> Alvaro Retana wrote:
> > ... 510 7.1. Support of 6LoWPAN ND
> doc> 512 In order to obtain routing services from a 6LR, a RUL MUST
> doc> implement 513 [RFC8505] and set the "R" and "T" flags in the
> doc> EARO. The RUL SHOULD 514 support [AP-ND] to protect the ownership of
> doc> its addresses. The RUL 515 MUST NOT request routing services from a
> doc> 6LR that does not originate 516 RA messages with a CIO that has the L,
> doc> P, and E flags all set as 517 discussed in Section 3.3.1, unless
> doc> configured to do so.
> > [major] I may be lost already... A RUL is by definition RPL-unaware.
> > It then follows that a RUL can't be assumed to be aware of this
> > specification, right? If so, then all the Normative language used in
> > this section can't be used because we can't specify the behavior of a
> > node that (by definition) is not aware of this document. [See more
> > related comments below.]
> We would have liked to have written a document that explained how to support
> RFC8504-compliant hosts, and at the time of 8504, we tried to make this an
> issue, but we failed.

Right.  I now understand the intent/requirements.

> So, yes, a RUL has to be aware of this document, and RFC8505, but it does
> need to speak RPL.

s/does/does not

> Such a node could be connected to a MANET or OLSR mesh using RFC8505-ND
> equally well.
> Maybe we should consider changing the title of the document?

The title ("Routing for RPL Leaves") is not as misleading as the RUL
name...which is why I made the initial assumption of not being aware
of this document.

If clarified early, I don't think we need to change the name.  Also, I
don't know what would be a better name.