Re: [Roll] enrollment priority

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Michael

Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2021-roll-02-202108311800/

We agreed that:
- as Konrad says again here we need a new lollipop counter
- as Rahul points out in his review the min priority is propagated unchanged in DIOs, what I understand Konrad calls GLOBAL
- as Huimin said on Aug 19th we must define the behavior of the node, which logic to use to increment the minimum priority from the DIO to place in the beacon.

GLOBAL vs FLEXIBLE was discussed, and I answered Konrad about the FLEXIBLE on Aug. 12th (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/2MaZ4wXLVzJbmLC-LO6c--DsbWQ/)
I do not see a use case for it, so it looks like overdesign but I'm open to be convinced otherwise

Keep safe;

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Konrad Iwanicki
> Sent: lundi 22 novembre 2021 15:55
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>; Michael
> Richardson <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] enrollment priority
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> As we discussed throughout the mailing list, we also need a sequence number
> so that correct values of DODAG_Size and min_priority are adopted. This in
> turn requires putting more information in the draft on the rules of
> adopting the values. They are explicitly formulated in my earlier e-mail
> about GLOBAL vs FLEXIBLE.
> 
> Take care,
> --
> - Konrad Iwanicki.
> 
> On 22/11/2021 15:15, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to edit draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority to reflect the
> > WG consensus.
> >
> > I think that we agreed that the nodes within the DODAG should not
> > change their enrollment priority.  It can be set by the root in it's
> > DIO, and it will propogate through the DODAG according to the normal
> trickle settings.
> > Changes to the priority will *not*(?!) reset the trickle timer.
> >
> > https://github.com/roll-wg/draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority/pull/9
> > is the pull request I just made, which may be easier to see the changes.
> >
> > specifically, I've deleted this line:
> >
> > https://github.com/roll-wg/draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority/pull/9/
> > files#diff-fe544a5ddaac2d404d7b76aa1204d54e36f5eb6618f3f52f0c0dc56dca4
> > 061faL169
> >
> >     The nodes then adjust this base value based upon their observed
> >     congestion, emitting their adjusted DIO value to their children.
> >
> > I actually find that there isn't a lot else to delete.
> >
> > I am concerned that I did not understand the WG consensus correctly,
> > so I am have not yet published this version.
> >
> > Do we want to retain the ability for the root to send a value 0-0x7f
> > into the DODAG, or was it only 0 and 1 that were useful?
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting
> )
> >             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll