IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] About merging two RFC drafts: draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority and DODAG size

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 06 February 2021 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 D991D3A2C81 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 13:56:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8BE0ELZPG7aG for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 13:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9919A3A2C82 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 13:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CAE389AB; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 16:59:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id YSC_RN1vp2b3; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 16:59:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D6D389A4; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 16:59:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DEC585; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 16:56:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "Huimin She (hushe)" <hushe@cisco.com>, "rahul.ietf@gmail.com" <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR11MB4881B45B84DEEAB6F51E811AD8B29@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <53213D6A-2693-4E6F-98D7-93B9C32826E2@cisco.com> <CO1PR11MB488127E6CC71362E8BE2E205D8B39@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <28613.1612455125@localhost> <CO1PR11MB4881B45B84DEEAB6F51E811AD8B29@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 16:56:05 -0500
Message-ID: <21397.1612648565@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/ddktasZzrtADeRrNtM-DWS0-soA>
Subject: Re: [Roll] About merging two RFC drafts: draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority and DODAG size
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: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 21:56:13 -0000

Pascal, thanks for starting this process!
I'm going to wait for Huimin to add his name to the author list, and
then I'll push an update document.

Your text puts both values into a single Metric.
I was thinking it would be two metrics, but upon reflection, it probably does
belong in a single metric object.

What would an appropriate default be if the metric is introduced in the
middle of the DODAG?
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-03#section-2.1



doc> The size of the DODAG is measured by the Root based one the DAO
doc> activity. It represents a number of routes not a number of nodes, and
doc> can only be used to infer a load in an homogeneous network where each
doc> node advertises the same number of addresses and generates roughly the
doc> same amount of traffic

I really that we would measure in terms of number of routes.

pt> I'm concerned that the undocumented/future behavior will create comments
pt> at the IESG.  My observation is that we should either define the process
pt> fully or not mention it at all.

I concur that we will get comments, and yet, I think that we really do want
to allow for "future work".

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email