Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status

Alvaro Retana <> Wed, 28 October 2020 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4478E3A0AB5; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AsJyT58q7RXj; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DF6B3A0AB0; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t25so101932ejd.13; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vkKipCCtVN0YMPpGg8DPFvXyYXoc6IT7JMdDTaWrh+I=; b=p6QLKsrNGtQsnvQ8xUtYo6WhPWCZQ33CQmZ+ti2R+VUsL4B1iqZSJFEBNtLtnDxqiR 1teYUG5vrPW8JRTyY0e486kjAN93WUyaZd3+aw86+3WMA15fc17NO6wUJw38JqFrFGjF 0EI4KZ7XFcKJxTCXpSAHJ9H5a2rw6wPSYSgZfPYZZblvu4DS89j/2gEQAOpyPJY6eGIK ZCFtVjdVZ/i1ZgrAsVaVd6qm9wJRzBf0q7/jqyQfDqduLQWSDfJR7UEFS3Ndo75zpT2d UiwXS05SO69IF/HOl4KSzPj1s3GypQCYFSnO17Rvh2KfdQQXpWYjIP5uKiN9fIvkX5pl Vskw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vkKipCCtVN0YMPpGg8DPFvXyYXoc6IT7JMdDTaWrh+I=; b=c+nht6nT+rHJ320QKjhfEbIr/5Bo/czhsRCUHin7jk5pe76aln9T+hBuJtG0MD8xvu vE1hQh6HWZTl9mje4xRoHHq4Qmy1m+RStyMHwNVKjwCnrzxNlRFtIgAqvYpLO5UXoOMf QTqs68QDt/kAGmD+56IcP0F4MBUJjg0lc75p7ejlult01Wyr3U6vXek8pSUIj29x3BtJ 2U4bnRHuu/nyBMuNgtXzQc2AHCt6lPZoXA5oIr5ksSaQmplxQPgNPG3ksH+vr91Uf18a nxjfISuu7je6+XEUTAtSodNlJ4BiqJpeXNopzK3EZz42JSDx+X0A3fempuxmyd8dPBgc 55jA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5339pvAaGdvNUf+U8IP/jBYThlPgFnpEMK1vL30tEDT99W6fDq5n aQdm8kNhkN2V1AYCr9n2jFOyvrV4kGaPMEYbumI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0XQ6VOmvYqUoWTRGs8ZJAqdnTIWouItaIzRw3oqTp15MmWOZ1TEj/NIoV4rbRKVvUZCTVogUdQkAmb1ahtlg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2b8b:: with SMTP id m11mr256532ejg.457.1603908328833; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:05:27 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:05:27 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Pascal Thubert <>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>, Rahul Jadhav <>
Cc: "" <>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003148fc05b2bf0218"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status
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: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:05:32 -0000

Ok…if the registry is created by unaware-leaves, and the “no routing entry”
value is added by npdao, we should be ok.


On October 28, 2020 at 12:22:09 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ( wrote:

Hello Rahul

> Thanks, Pascal, Alvaro for the edits.
> @Pascal Thubert, Regarding "('E' flag set and 'A' flag not set)", this
> 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
> of E/A flags in unaware-leaves. Can we skip that part since anyways we
> 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

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?