Re: [Roll] WGLC on draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-13

Rahul Jadhav <> Wed, 08 April 2020 06:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B793A0780 for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 23:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=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)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KB__Hx_zP2ku for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 23:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D12C3A077D for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 23:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o1so7198107edv.1 for <>; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 23:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=16WkduuXTrUDvTsXj5w7PycKNodhHTC3nJbxp+3AoWw=; b=DW3HFeDmRxnrRNori6p62GmvjAGUk6rK6O6fbYqjBd8F52IfgHTdBZUJ2FU+J0I4ju B8qDh/H+kU8cM7fjeuzmC384QjTzobHZ/dXMAwLBQAG/9pmvmvYQ/c+tPbMQwqVoDn0b Gd/j5pwLM8Li9V3MUTOPYwUXJUl0dD6aqhJkeH2cnVN92mnLS1F3yO6ODW6GVsPWDOmO 7gBM6uC0H0DNgPOKNiAIt2za/SN/po2jLDnlYocgSCkqeJGeIeikw8EjW267gX5aowdu dtza6MkuHwyC3k2q7XIwx9KP6LPS4287cmO0eJ082w0n//gB7lDiisjuOxzgRoo+J/pc 3HFQ==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=16WkduuXTrUDvTsXj5w7PycKNodhHTC3nJbxp+3AoWw=; b=CjwBQkfRD4u9LS8GCHKulwhxgErdQc9ejm+BGvloDJJ0owiGRcxsSAW6B6CuImPfqO wSg4fbk7niUNPGe6GJaouwlw1yrAOKT1k5rc2RTiv2If0/vNLSNGKjBWspFLAX/sMQqe u+P/sxTVFdA8B4sJolVZSojhUZPS2eU3XJRT2Ur7dinj6atMvNxFvnk/5+ky5ysksnuU lGHv1Nm+6qee44HkCLMOi9pl7ZNZnLWXumNleHzyxHR1iZk2yadADyltpieXf8ASzJGk hnbNyGjDYJ/fGhoAAupU/SlyKHc7U1oeYaEH+ai9JntHxYO3iIhxwr6KBObA2dtdwcTB 7sYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubnWvOi3NzFafE3Fd89SYSZMVfxcVUO4aIaLiWdKYrr9VCevO74 GNy/0hDXImzZJQDQxtY6gN4iJXBkLuvzhBmgUzAj29w9w0o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLuR2NnQlj7FIxeYyA+McSLczsFToOd9s7SkklC4WmYXoF9bQ2+s0reQyvl/mKL7xvgQAlN8GcGsWkG4GNB3+Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5e14:: with SMTP id n20mr5408952eju.70.1586327556731; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 23:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Rahul Jadhav <>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 14:32:25 +0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC on draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-13
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, 08 Apr 2020 06:32:41 -0000

Dear Authors-of-unaware-leaves,

Following are my comments for the draft -13:

1. The draft requires that the first registration (EDAR/EDAC) is
directly handshaked with the 6LBR but all the subsequent refreshes
using DAO/DAO-ACK goes through the Root which in turn generates
anonymous EDAR/EDAC handshaked with the 6LBR.
**Can't we have the 6LR simply use DAO always to Root which generates
the EDAR(with ROVR)/EDAC to 6LBR?** This would simplify the handling
of 6LR. With the updated target option it is now possible to send ROVR
in target option in a backward-compatible fashion. The root is anyways
handling the anonymous EDAR/EDAC and thus has all the required
handling needed to proxy non-anonymous EDAR/EDAC. Also, the
de-registration is also handled through Root which means Root also has
to proxy non-anonymous EDAR/EDAC in that case? The de-registration
case is not clarified in the Figures 7,8,9.

2. The document introduces the term RAN for any RPL aware node which
can act as a parent node for the RUL. But in the document,
subsequently, the term 6LR is used to depict the parent node with
which the RUL attaches. Wondering why? Isn't RAN the appropriate term
to be used?

3. Section 9.2.2: "If a 6LR receives a valid NS(EARO) message with the
"R" flag reset and a Registration Lifetime that is not 0, and the 6LR
was redistributing the Registered Address due to previous NS(EARO)
messages with the flag set, then it MUST stop injecting the address."
In this case, should the 6LR also evict the corresponding NCE?

4. Section 9.2.3: "the Registration Lifetime is adapted from the Path
Lifetime in the TIO by converting the Lifetime Units used in RPL into
units of 60 seconds used in the 6LoWPAN ND messages;"
The unit of lifetime for RPL is not a multiple of 60sec like that of
6lo ND. Thus it is possible that absolute conversion is not possible
in some cases. I guess the implementation should round-up in this

5. Section 5 ... "anonymous message can only increase the lifetime"
... It should be "anonymous message can only update the lifetime"

6. Section 9.1 ... "On the first Address Registration, illustrated in
Figure 5 and Figure 8" ... Figure 8 currently does not show first
address registration.

7. Nits:
Sec 9.2.2 "that is sends in response" -> "that is sent in response"
Sec 10: "unicast to each if the interested children" -> "unicast to
each of the interested children"
Sec 10: "Layer-2 acknoledgement" -> "Layer-2 acknowledgement"
Sec 11: " whereby the it is possible to validate" ->  "whereby it is
possible to validate"
Sec 12.4: "DAO-ACK and RCO" -> "DAO-ACK and DCO"
Appendix A: " Follows the RPI-6LoRH and then the IP-in-IP 6LoRH." ->
Need to be rephrased

Thank you.


On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Ines Robles
<> wrote:
> Dear all,
> We hope that you all are doing well and stay healthy
> This is a kindly reminder of the WGLC for unaware-leaves draft.
> It would be great if you could state your opinion on it.
> Have a great day and thank you in advance,
> Ines, Dominique and Michael
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 5:45 PM <> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> This is a gentle reminder that we are half-way through the WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-13.
>> Please consider reading it and commenting on it.
>> Thanks
>> Dominique
>> De : "" <>
>> Date : Wednesday 18 March 2020 12:40
>> À : "" <>
>> Cc : Dominique Barthel <>
>> Objet : WGLC on draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-13
>> Dear all,
>> A Working Group Last Call (WGLC) starts today (03/18) until 04/01 for the draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-13.
>> The draft is available here:
>> Please review this draft to see if you think that it is ready for publication and send comments to the list stating your view.
>> Thank you very much in advance,
>> Ines and Dominique
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list