Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 29 October 2020 10:55 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMESswYrHfoOg7icEt_DMsRtjEAzTPwVxgiHMcpmq8OHaKO_w@mail.gmail.com> <5F860BB9-5306-4EC8-9998-376611AB1773@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5F860BB9-5306-4EC8-9998-376611AB1773@cisco.com>
From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:25:24 +0530
Message-ID: <CAO0Djp2YXH5YCTvxYoPULL_9VtxVBHfNatBj4ipYhi5VBJc51g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Pascal Thubert <pascal.thubert@gmail.com>, "roll-chairs@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/ctCKEAaGSIKE-5OwgjHxGEtERk4>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status
Precedence: list

I am not sure if I understand it correctly.
Is the proposal to update the IANA registry for "no routing entry"
value by NPDAO? That is, I should keep the IANA section in NPDAO but
mention it is an update to (not create of) the registry and keep a
reference to unaware leaves?
Does this also mean that there will be an update to Section 12.5 of
Unaware leaves?

Regards,
Rahul


On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 01:18, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Let’s do this !
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pascal
>
> Le 28 oct. 2020 à 19:05, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> 
> Ok…if the registry is created by unaware-leaves, and the “no routing entry” value is added by npdao, we should be ok.
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On October 28, 2020 at 12:22:09 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (pthubert@cisco.com) wrote:
>
> Hello Rahul
>
> > Thanks, Pascal, Alvaro for the edits.
> >
> > @Pascal Thubert, Regarding "('E' flag set and 'A' flag not set)", this may
> > confuse the reader and also may not be relevant for this spec since it is ok for
> > an implementer to simply use 0/1 as a Status value without the understanding
> > of E/A flags in unaware-leaves. Can we skip that part since anyways we are
> > referencing unaware-leaves?
>
> RFC 6550 specifies that values >= 128 are rejection. The 'E' flag is backward compatible. The reason why I mention it is that DCO has a normative ref to unuaware leaves, so it needs to implement the new RPL Status, meaning that it needs to indicates the setting of the 'E' and 'A' flags for each status it defines.
>
> My question to you is whether DCO status code 1 was a rejection or not. If it was a rejection, then the RPL Status value per RFC 6550 should have been 129; in the new format it is 1 again, but with the 'E' flag set. This si what https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-22#section-12.5 assumes.
>
> If it is a warning, then a value of 1 is OK but still I'd mention the E and A flags for completeness, both set to 0.
> If so then the IANA declaration in unaware-leaves has to change.
>
> I tend to think that I should remove
>
> | 1 | No routing-entry for the | [EFFICIENT-NPDAO] |
> | | indicated Target found |
>
> From the initialization of the IANA section and let you define it as a new entry in the registry in DCO.
>
> What do you all think?
>
> Pascal

[Roll] Deprecating DCO status Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status Rahul Jadhav
Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status Alvaro Retana
Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status Rahul Jadhav
Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status Alvaro Retana
Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status Rahul Jadhav
Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status Pascal Thubert (pthubert)