Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao

The registry does not exist so unless we decide to create it there is no IANA  change. Call it an omission in RFC 6550.

For that reason I have already added text in the next RUL to create the registry (in github). Let’s keep it in RUL to minimize the changes in NPDAO.

Minimal changes to NPDAO is to change the name “reserved” of the field in the drawing and add text saying same status field as in RPL DAO ACK.

If we really want new status values we may also add them in NPDAO and I’ll adapt RUL. But there is no absolute need to create the registry in NPDAO.

Regards,

Pascal

Le 30 août 2019 à 09:30, Peter van der Stok <stokcons@bbhmail.nl<mailto:stokcons@bbhmail.nl>> a écrit :

Hi Authors,

It is a bit late to change the approved draft.
It is in IANA editing; and you could write to IANA to apologize for a late addition and see how far they are in the process.
BUT, worse,  how much text is needed to explain this addition?

Adding text to an approved document sounds like opening a can of worms to me.

Peter

Rahul Arvind Jadhav schreef op 2019-08-30 09:03:
The DCO could be initiated for regular route invalidation due to path changes or because of management decision. The status code can help understand the reason for initiating the DCO. I like the idea of this.

However, I don’t know, procedurally, what it means to changing the draft at this stage.

The changes to draft would include new IANA considerations for the status field.

From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: 30 August 2019 14:43
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao

Dear all ;

I know it’s late but I’d suggest an addition to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao. There’s a reserved field in the DCO.
My suggestion is to use it to transport RPL DAO-ACK status values as defined in RFC 6550. This way we can signal the reason of the DCO to the node.
This will become significant with the RPL-unaware leaves draft, so we can rebuild a NA(EARO) with a non-zero status based on a DCO.

Else the RUL draft will have to update efficient NP DAO, which does not look as good.

Any objection to this?

Pascal

   0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | RPLInstanceID |K|D|   Flags   |   Reserved    | DCOSequence   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                                                               |
     +                            DODAGID(optional)                  +
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Option(s)...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll