Re: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18.txt

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Rahul:

Let’s leave it as is…we can add the reference later when the RFC Editor
edits the document.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On April 17, 2020 at 9:20:40 PM, Rahul Jadhav ([e-mail]) wrote:

Many thanks Alvaro for reviewing the changes.

I have made fixes for all the comments you made. (But I am not sure if I
have handled point 2 properly.)
So as not to push another version to datatracker till we have finalized
changes, I have pushed the changes to roll-wg repo, and hoping you could
please skim through the diff there.
https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/diff-draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao.html

Thanks,
Rahul

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 04:30, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On April 15, 2020 at 10:31:47 PM, Rahul Jadhav wrote:
>
>
> Rahul:
>
> Hi!
>
>
> This change seems ok.  However, please keep in mind that this document
> is already in the RFC Editor's queue...which in general means that we
> shouldn't be changing it too much/often.
>
>
> This is the new text you added:
>
>    Value 195 represents 'E' and 'A' bit in RPL Status to be set as per
>    Figure 3 of [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves] with the lower 6 bits with
>    value 3 indicating 'Moved' as per Table 1 of [RFC8505].
>
> I have a couple of comments:
>
> 1. [nit/minor] "'E' and 'A' bit in RPL Status to be set as per Figure
> 3"  The figure shows how the fields are placed in the RPL Status, not
> how/when to set the bits.
>
> 2. [minor] "with the lower 6 bits with value 3"  This is technically
> correct, but I had to read it a couple of times because the
> combination of "bits" and "value" makes it sound as if bit 3 may be
> set.
>
> 3. [major] Add a Normative reference to rfc8505.
>
>
> Suggestion>
>    An RPL Status of 195 represents the 'E' and 'A' bits set
>    ([I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves]), and a Value of 3 ('Moved') as per
> Table 1
>    of [RFC8505].
>
>
> One more nit in Figure 3:  s/RPL  Status/RPL Status
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
> > Since unaware-leaves to coming close to closure, I thought now is the
> time to
> > make the update to this draft (it was in cross-ref with unaware-leaves).
> > We have a value for RPL Status Moved in DCO. And it is 195. The update
> > explains this.
> >
> > Any feedback/comment is most appreciated.
> >
> > References:
> > 1. [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage
> > 2.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/cxyoy9uUtWQoUsHc0ge8VUx-6KY/
> > 3. Why 195?
> https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/why-RPL-Status-195.png
>