Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 12 December 2019 12:05 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24CE12003E for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:05:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=cwt3q6QM; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=yV5/YQKc
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xmvRr0_1D0m1 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59B801200EB for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:05:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2764; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1576152341; x=1577361941; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Or7Dgh5ox5lhpBwre7fSZ1ocGS9d0vcE3xVpgJ++SoE=; b=cwt3q6QMg0zkEVn/+dXpTzSGqLTA89LWEYOjZzhqzTxCSq3i+W1nhdbk VLBh5871K6/ig44HiSTbpCJW5GRPOPaLg+F/ZBmRsX0sVjwpIVd7sLpTJ 6/kohbG+S9+abr/oIpPw/4nB9DOafmfB/BUhDidW5WvX/PoBQXtivtVPY k=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ac3QCrB1C9clsz+URsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44?= =?us-ascii?q?YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxKGt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8RVgOIdJSw?= =?us-ascii?q?dDjMwXmwI6B8vQEVH7MfTndTASF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CyAAD7K/Jd/4oNJK1lGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF+gUtQBWxYIAQLKoQDg0YDiwiCX4EBlwWCUgN?= =?us-ascii?q?UCQEBAQwBASMKAgEBhEACF4FzJDgTAgMNAQEEAQEBAgEFBG2FNwyFXgEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?DEhERDAEBNwEPAgEIDgMEAQEDAiYCAgIwFQgIAQEEAQ0FCBqDAYJGAy4BAgy?= =?us-ascii?q?iDAKBOIhhdYEygn4BAQWFBRiCFwMGgQ4ojBgagUE/gRFHgU5JNT6CZAKBRx6?= =?us-ascii?q?DDjKCLJAunkUKgjCHJI5wmkGOS4hMkXECBAIEBQIOAQEFgWkigVhwFYMnUBE?= =?us-ascii?q?UkCCDc4pTdIEojn0BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,305,1571702400"; d="scan'208";a="683420998"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 12 Dec 2019 12:05:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (xch-rcd-008.cisco.com [173.37.102.18]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBCC5dvx023172 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:05:40 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:05:39 -0600
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:05:38 -0600
Received: from NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:05:38 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hINfNf+qLcp2SZ8D4yOdkS2utr2aSciBNaVkxwD8y42S92+8cXIG2gu8WyG6RPBMAwVXmtW329si/+I3TH3ITe+9g+ZQwa1CnPQrFJRgIUKeD45DlPoLODH8522nMm7dfy/ABycgEJYK4rs2vhgDof4mvwnJXR2LrxTULICFzyLRB0EoBcP/7sgLydkMvnsiMrH0nC30kgBb9ov+pH7wwjRcYhYN/wPhDkgRcJWABRlxyheNGCpg7u/aMHE2kFvozSy1t/L2pD6m+WxCZ8bbLzRuCRP+dqm/8YlFLI7WS0dX5Py2Ugb2pq89nfDqPzV72Eap2HUMviY8X5lW/Fvh4g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Or7Dgh5ox5lhpBwre7fSZ1ocGS9d0vcE3xVpgJ++SoE=; b=eEHQl7UXM4/ZZsuONSTxd6NxzlyUDinci0Vx9ISPRhuCIRG/2eMZbB+X2SZ8s5I3TMNa5ukr0IEW7C1swGyUqF9NnHdIH0dL3vF/mTTtRqjtqvopYw9+EyOchcIE/X+b8jrEPewKiOH4fZBwjTuCnwXpwvOZXSQEKmflwheVJMUZzm6mIzrRHzClQiUZreDJJ/SDsF2J8kEzruwjvcVLXq4/StEI6q4PBz8wlmC4rvGnm4FKpoDmuMHjXigRj+Zoccs/KCmLHko1U1t8H6eR3ww9txceHBFB0QWi+dTzUdl6MFJWZ77WWz+jMizaT2e/4bNMVfcxNc8yEdd8UUX6Tg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Or7Dgh5ox5lhpBwre7fSZ1ocGS9d0vcE3xVpgJ++SoE=; b=yV5/YQKcsTUoGskDpArVQFCpMABaWwtsQLICbmtUW4ZmkkmUdjP2EAPzhmuPK30/qFo0rlx94CakUtddAzpnOAAf9sdyHuqiaJKNOuzIFn3DZOayiopUOzf2xJZeSoUdWn+6ZWjbiQ5UgQQNEfVGE8QqzZmcnaSWZyF1JyExohs=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB4496.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.90) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2516.14; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:05:37 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3037:66f1:dc79:b564]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3037:66f1:dc79:b564%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2538.016; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:05:38 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, "Michael Richardson (mcr@sandelman.ca)" <mcr@sandelman.ca>
CC: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits
Thread-Index: AdWwJRvZ7XmAp6+3QFWzwer5FCoQUgAZCMSAABaLBAA=
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:05:23 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:04:41 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB356568F70A59FA4035539314D8550@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB3565E131BDE051D0AD920F84D85A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAO0Djp1UW+hmvN0FE7c+GW2jqdwrGVJ-1JPXE4WBQH=MgVUXVA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp1UW+hmvN0FE7c+GW2jqdwrGVJ-1JPXE4WBQH=MgVUXVA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c0:1003::155]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9694658c-0133-4f0c-d143-08d77efb9a05
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4496:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB44961EEC8F5E5FCC2BCE55DCD8550@MN2PR11MB4496.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0249EFCB0B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(199004)(189003)(9686003)(186003)(6506007)(86362001)(53546011)(8676002)(6666004)(64756008)(81156014)(8936002)(81166006)(4326008)(66574012)(2906002)(110136005)(71200400001)(76116006)(66476007)(33656002)(7696005)(66946007)(5660300002)(52536014)(66446008)(55016002)(316002)(66556008)(966005)(478600001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4496; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: UM+djg7D/bJuzX0hVBwKBPXYcTKVuqe9Y+2x2K1qV+pGO9DTArkOcxa7X83M/0ERVsIon/zDOInLkiQWnHdzd6GFq2rwp7AjDk7hyCagmlwsXInPeZFwJJ/WUY7NL/CYu1KVMddQkms4ZMPolxPQvz1W9uAzkNhRFcQ1UD/SIIFcuuQTHxnvCvcpZMPraSh/SJGXVbalJT7vsLPouuMZaEo+Qidc1fM4gO7xmcjK2kdJ11giesygW0s2I8Bs+VCYgpFxFa/WCYz6Nee8KNwl9eVjGN6qtmxTdtvS4kErL562otiRejE9bwV1f/zRZZUg0T3k3esLbOt+KCUblzA+H12RiYqjrfgUdR0FRWNJCR/rwAxPYl0D+Hg5J8MSjpuFgwQB773iGuQxKE/4UEz1TmcQfmbsVPa7p44QXns7j/lFvJKyaoMYWsQ9Rh5zXw6w
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9694658c-0133-4f0c-d143-08d77efb9a05
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Dec 2019 12:05:38.1308 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 5L8OKFBLYmcSJLHDCwi4jnPLTnZjOy4a0KasLs5b6aXAfnPt53vSVeH4gprjHYT+sgUrtLkbKEbtttrxXKvsCA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4496
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.18, xch-rcd-008.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/k8S_hKmSitDJ5xHt7vIv3WVMBvc>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:05:44 -0000

For Use of RPL info I propose the following addition

"

Section 6.3.1. of <xref target="RFC6550"/> defines a 3-bit Mode of
Operation (MOP) in the DIO Base Object. The flag is defined only
for MOP value between 0 to 6. For a MOP value of 7 or above, the flag
MAY indicate something different and MUST NOT be interpreted as
"RPI 0x23 enable" unless the specification of the MOP
indicates to do so.

"

I created a pull request to the authors. The pull request also proposes some clean up since the original text really abuses terms like "RPI value".
The RPI is an abstract data defined in RFC 6550. RFC 6553 defines a RPL Option. 0x63 is the value of the Option Type field of the RPL Option. I changed the draft to use "RPI" in abusive replacement of "RPL Option" so we can use " RPI Option Type" but kept the abuse at that.

https://github.com/roll-wg/useofrplinfo/pull/6

Ines: You author section does not compile well, if you could look at it as well?

All the best

Pascal


From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Rahul Jadhav
Sent: jeudi 12 décembre 2019 02:13
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits

 
The proposal on the table was:
- change turnon-rfc8138 to say that the configuration bit only applies to MOP < 7 (RPL v1)
- use-of-rpl-info is edited to say the same thing
- we create a IANA registry with a MOP column so the bits depend on the MOP. MOPext could be the place for introducing this registry.
 
I’d like to check if the ML is in line with this approach.

[RJ] I am inline with these points.
I would like to confirm a point here... Reclaiming the turnon-8138 flag in MOP>=7 would mean that 8138 is _mandatorily_ supported in the nodes above MOP>=7 such that they no more depend on this flag. This in itself is a bigger decision! Is my understanding correct? While the advantages of 8138 are obvious in non-storing MOP case, they are less impacting/obvious in storing MOP case.