IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Published draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-03

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 02 September 2019 17:31 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 B5105120154 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 pQP3_XCQOuPj for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06A94120077 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC285380BE for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 13:30:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77D6E47 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 13:31:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <1A1D3BDD-71EE-4C6A-BC07-2550C4011BC0@cisco.com>
References: <BYAPR11MB3558E623D03E8806E7A176A9D8BE0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>, <26984.1567436390@localhost> <1A1D3BDD-71EE-4C6A-BC07-2550C4011BC0@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 13:31:18 -0400
Message-ID: <29608.1567445478@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/e2yA-WArqyyHlW1pnNT_GimxlQ4>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Published draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-03
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: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 17:31:38 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    >>> *   Signal the capability by the root to proxy the EDAR in behalf of
    >>> the 6LR. Should we use the MOP draft or make it protocol independent
    >>> with 6CIO so any routing protocol could be used to proxy?
    >>
    >> I think we should use the root-announced (non-negotiated) capability.
    >>

    > Works for me

    >>> *   Impact on useofrplinfo: the change that the (E flag) =>
    >>> (non-storing signaling + tunnel to the 6LR)
    >>
    >> ....
    >>
    >>> Since those specs are not published yet, we could piggy-back the
    >>> changes there but that means taking the drafts off the RFC editor's
    >>> hands.
    >>
    >> I think that the useofrplinfo change affects only two (maybe) four of the 24
    >> cases, and the case remains where we have an IPv6 Host only.
    >> So I think it is better to Updates: useofrplinfo.
    >>

    > Would you take the pen for this and the root capability? I’m looking at
    > the mop draft in parallel

To clarify:
My job is to document a capability (using mopex mechanism), in the
unaware-leaves document so that the root can announce that it can
process/proxy the EDAR.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email