Re: [Roll] [draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension] Section realignment - feedback request

Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <> Tue, 25 February 2020 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155C13A0FAC for <>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 08:18:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=XiT0vuLU; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=Rqg3CFrH
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o5L6WQse321A for <>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 08:18:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE193A0FA2 for <>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 08:18:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD732D09 for <>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:18:36 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20160819-nLV10XS2; t=1582647516; bh=xG2amIAmfOTFmlXZ70DwIWvPz9Gny79d5/uIzaSQkTQ=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=XiT0vuLUASJ+5lPHh7xB9vuyI0ApmVZjCaof14pfV8GF2dFxxPIOlxlyNU4vyScwo GP75TRWUmKZphgZAfgLLWMG1Wb0pRwoT2BT17gW87F5I7Mayqpk+TrNAHhOJimCTmv 1DxPbM3tMzXz02PvF7PWzi/NudKrM4sILt6r03MoJvpMk7WDOSefl+3KmOAsRoaEkF LwwokjK3sKwcNjHPqL0NWj9vyQpR0A2ajteKeSSGOTlJJ+SAoFAy2Dcy+hQYuTaxUy t+/wSLhmaWGqo/l1no1YgSAZG9Q9EjNPau4/HNusBjmd+I9PB51WW4Qhbh88r89NsO EEdMHlWemm3nA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1582647516; s=20191001-wvim;;; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type; l=12650; bh=xG2amIAmfOTFmlXZ70DwIWvPz9Gny79d5/uIzaSQkTQ=; b=Rqg3CFrHDmUGVoC7cDsCw2QA0Oe3kh0j2VefzaUpx3BC3/ffh/9S7oCpd73igNdd IWxVQWeAJXbRVE4xPjy8PGl7kC+fGFnH13cwcbDI0NXn62OCU/1FdEAB6OgxcQzoxVO Zx2BMZExFd2WMxqqiNcAYy16InHvCWSETIuNCOEWYbTNAzGQKFbot7A/gHE7gKUAerA biu/zQRwGUeyahCnVVojhdWZLTosJdBinEacBzWONETpdnTK7ova76hnwnhuiBuiKyF 8fcjF0zQipzavZZ+j0CgczDfjkOJFjtQ0ngJfK6eULnIHK96s6SMu75ljuqw8qhtIg2 C328O1T52w==
Received: by with ESMTPA for <> ; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:18:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: by with SMTP id z16so2993027iod.11 for <>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 08:18:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXR22D8KwM2+dwzhgUNCGnqic7nOnRnuMJ8jyR2AS0g2jCbYErq SZYNZm7na7mzsxnUXrpPygzdABK0Zzv1I61CBPE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxXsF9oetWgHm0xRf3yprMdSkJ9F55ABeOL3GR4dl/jb7LO4vV4i2qONJUVuu13sxfcMib6fbbkDvyMYyx1mto=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:840a:: with SMTP id i10mr57309974ion.225.1582647503567; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 08:18:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:18:33 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <>
Message-ID: <>
To: dominique barthel <>, Rahul Jadhav <>
Cc: "Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" <>, INES ROBLES <>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>, roll <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004148c3059f68d6dd"
X-ContactOffice-Account: com:113819248
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension] Section realignment - feedback request
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 16:18:43 -0000

Hello Dominique and Rahul,

thank you both very much for the review and comments.

I am glad that there is consensus and both of you agree that the section
order should be reversed.
I had no real problem with either order but after reading it many times
maybe I have been desensitized a bit.

So I will make the change, no problem.

Also, since Dominique plans to send more comments, I think I will wait for
those as well so that I can do all the fixes/changes together, hopefully
before the next cutoff date.

Again, thanks a lot for the help.


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:55 AM <> wrote:

> Hello Aris, all,
> Thanks for asking.
> I've just reviewed version –06 of the draft, before reading the details of
> the email below.
> It turns out that I was not shocked by the current ordering of sections.
> Probably because I'm already familiar with the topic.
> However, at minimum, a forward reference to Sections 3.1-3.3 would be
> highly useful to newcomers to the draft. Probably right after "There are
> multiple alternative methods of selecting the AP node."
> Reading the details of the email below and thinking about it, I believe
> that bringing sections 3.1-3.4 forward in the document, before Section 3
> "Common Ancestor Objective Function", as Rahul suggests, would make even
> more sense.
> Just be careful to call the CA-Strict, CA-Medium and CA-Relaxed things
> "methods" or "algorithm", not OF. Leave the "OF" term to the actual
> definition (as updates to MRHOF), and refer to the "algorithms" in the OF
> definition.
> This is my personal opinion as a member of the WG.
> More comments on the draft to come in a separate email.
> Best regards,
> Dominique
> De : Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <>
> Date : Monday 10 February 2020 15:56
> À : "" <>,
> Dominique Barthel <>, Pascal Thubert <
>>, "" <>
> Cc : "Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" <>
> Objet : [draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension] Section realignment - feedback
> request
> Dear Ines, Dominique, Pascal, and all,
> After discussing and amending the draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension draft
> with feedback from Rahul, a few points still remain which we would like
> some additional feedback on.
> I copy the relevant discussion below:
> [RJ] Section realignment
> It is better to explain CA Strict/Medium/Relax policies before explaining
> the
> CAOF because as a reader one needs to be familiar with these policies
> before
> understanding the OF.
> [AK] Thank you for this comment. We had a similar concern as well.
> We are not sure what is best.
> As the text is current structured, we introduce the CAOF first, mentioning
> that different policies are possible and that a selection from the parent
> set must be made.
> We then describe the CAOF in terms of differences from/additions to MRHOF.
> And finally we describe the policies.
> To my mind, the policies are concrete, but they are also just examples, so
> someone can devise different ones.
> In that sense the CAOF is more "fixed" and the policies are more flexible.
> Thus it makes sense to describe the CAOF first.
> We are very open to changing the order, but we would like to have some
> additional feedback that the order is problematic as it stands now.
> We would like to hear any suggestions from the group on this topic.
> [RJ] Ok, lets wait for feedback. I, for one, would like to see
> policies explained first and then an OF using them. I find this the
> only logical way.
> [RJ] Rahul Jadhav
> [AR] Aris Koutsiamanis
> Thank you very much in advance.
> Best,
> Aris
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.