Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01.txt

[Rahul Jadhav <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rabi,

Please find my resp inline.
I/J/C flags are not only for DIO but can be used for any RPL message/control options. I am not sure why you say that the flags are DIO specific?

Best,
Rahul

________________________________
From: Roll <[e-mail]> on behalf of rabi narayan sahoo <[e-mail]>
Sent: 26 June 2020 07:09 PM
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01.txt

Hi Rahul
Find my comments inline.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:41 AM Rahul Jadhav <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Thanks Rabi for the review.

1. The 'I' bit was introduced recently so that a node not understanding the option ignores the whole message. This could potentially lead to a node not joining as a 6LR or a 6LN.. The J flag decides only for node joining as 6LR. As an example, the I bit can be used by root to ensure that only the nodes understanding a given option join (as 6LN/6LR) that instance. There are several other possibilities even for non-root nodes.

   [Rabi]-: I got this point. I feel this is very very specific to DIO. Even the J bit.

[RJ] Why do you think this is very specific to DIO? Any RPL message can be ignored/dropped for the said reason, not only DIO.

                This will be the new Control Option format that is going to be used in RPLv2 . This will be used to define new options meant for DIS, DIO, DAO, DAO-ACK, DCO or other new messages to be  added in future.
                I have one suggestion: can we let such flag bits be part of the option data itself?

[RJ] In a way it is already part of option data. If you see the flags have carved out a space from option data. Option length includes option data (which includes these flags too).

                We have one flag bit to indicate if this option is mandatory or optional. Maybe the 'J' flag can make M to serve the purpose. If an option is mandatory to be understood then let the particular option
                take a decision about what action to be taken. If the option is part of DIO it can define join as leaf or don't join. What do you think?
2. Will fix the typo.

Thanks,
Rahul



On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 16:58, rabi narayan sahoo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Rahul

In section 4 its mentioned
"I" (Ignore) bit in Option Flags: A node which does not understand the Option Type MUST ignore this whole message if the ’I’ bit is
set. If ’I’ bit is set than the value of ’J’ and ’C’ bits are irrelevant and the message MUST be ignored."

1-  I didn't get why the whole message needs to be ignored if an option is not understood?  I think this bit MUST say if the option is optional or mandatory. If it's mandatory then 'J' flag will control
     if the node can join as a leaf or an LR.
    Am I missing something here?

2- There is a typo error (Than)

Thanks
Rabi


On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:11 PM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Mode of Operation extension
        Authors         : Rahul Arvind Jadhav
                          Pascal Thubert
                          Michael Richardson
        Filename        : draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01.txt
        Pages           : 8
        Date            : 2020-06-05

Abstract:
   RPL allows different mode of operations which allows nodes to have a
   consensus on the basic primitives that must be supported to join the
   network.  The MOP field in [RFC6550] is of 3 bits and is fast
   depleting.  This document extends the MOP for future use.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-mopex/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll