Re: [Roll] MOP 7

Abdussalam Baryun <> Mon, 25 November 2019 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AD412081B for <>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 23:34:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 SbTHeh4f5h-Y for <>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 23:34:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 157FF12080B for <>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 23:34:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o12so12183864oic.9 for <>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 23:34:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JRgmX5CEc4mwG8KORvFcJ6W1yD+ewstk2tWAasdT8V0=; b=BVi/UvAAgiy4UR3MKfZYfLnR8/w6catUCfWB72v6dBDcWylKQuzpwS4I/Qs2TqMfBu O9aKfY2DaZOMZWFh4IdNqdl2e7iE5ICwG79zm1zrnbd+2XGK8kgrz1r8FjPBk/9P4vSV xp1zlWE/JaMS08rEfPglhHV7orJZ7CL61kmVHaYWvA3/IIE+XaiHRCwL/il0i8Y3t4eU QLApZGt0lvEitmMXBO2X/aUPil9uXAjrVlQDj9uFWWZ/xQ1Xeggj4jWMdPjZ1kuLIxw/ r0x9AuDTgQCQVcbUg9sQ0LKRBxB5MpwftZViIZKwCHKJ58WCVSZwvFXzm4dSlHHXzSXy Ln5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=JRgmX5CEc4mwG8KORvFcJ6W1yD+ewstk2tWAasdT8V0=; b=sFlAIgtqfC2RWfms1T+lBHqPt0PQ8TQ35KALVDHxdBei4eMK1RmIaEhR9Hl0EZCdYy Lad+NOvWCRhAxFUe41TJ4OmUYlP5489jQmYHoIqmzjRo+ou9ucC+gKrWtdY+/mxsAsCX t4XadTsQD4h/mrlAL7ueWCV6zTocRvbY7+dmNMnIjF004tmnzXY7Fll9SMHCfUmRI05g erg5c+/GK0QyiKM6gFFKgli2ZiaPlxeDilCHdBgb+VI1iQoF51CE6BOIV/NrrA6cnlP0 2KBqLZzB5vDTsGQl7297QikkIfmmx+K3NYdmEhGxvG5POt1Bri6B1lLfCxIyGs1SRkkO afpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWbCJKPTpzoKdsyTw4QUbTt7guTKcHysyFKhfUsqqkGgMUnA2Rd QZg90V88cNA667E7uTWmyweTjjHixukD5XpWsq01LQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxMeHmH0ozCqM7JqlTSkAbjo502uIyv27EUMOO6gxw4/A1NtXiGzH1vXLUvcSoKdp6fDtXT+c5etAVzdL4bvow=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:3ac3:: with SMTP id h186mr22211124oia.134.1574667281287; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 23:34:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:34:07 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f0cebf059826cb50"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] MOP 7
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: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 07:34:44 -0000

I don't agree with this message proposals, because I think it needs to be
in separate draft if we are mentioning new version of RPL, as RPLv2 which
is not submitted yet to WG. We need to make discussion/work not complicated
and within WG milestones.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 3:44 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <> wrote:

> Dear all
> *   Yesterday we said that if MOP is 7 then the MOPext is expected else
> the packet is dropped. An alternate could be to say that if MOP is 7 in the
> DIO and the MOPext is not present then the MOP is non-storing, since this
> is the most widely used mode in constrained networks. *

even if non storing is widely used we cannot ignore storing or mix modes,

> *   We also said that a MOP of 7 means RPLv2, which packages new support
> we are defining. Q is what’s mandatory and what’s optional.*

You must mean by 'We'  the group that attended, and not All the WG.
I support separating RPLv2 from RPLv1,

* I see mandatory the support of the MOPext, capabilities, useofrplinfo,
> DCO and RUL draft. *

don't agree for that for RPLv1,

* RFC 8138 (inc turn-on), PDAO and AODV RPL are also part of RPLv2 but then
> the support may be optional I guess, known through capability.*

Why? RPLv2 is not submitted as proposal to WG, please submit if there is
one so we can understand what is your v2 (many participants may think
different versions)!

> *   What do you think?*

I think We as WG need to focus to make it simple routing not complicated,
so this MOPext is for RPLv1 only and when the draft or proposal submitted
to WG with RPLv2 subject, then we can discuss with better focus/options.


> *   Pascal *
> * _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list
> <>
> <> *