Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-04.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 05 April 2016 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 258C812D800 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 12:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vDfsKoYYU5zm for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 12:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33AB012D63B for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 12:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0877F2002A for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:44:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921EC6375A for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:41:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160405193517.7205.97237.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20160405193517.7205.97237.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:41:22 -0400
Message-ID: <23332.1459885282@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/k_J2RfV15oeZKbiwmknZek07V4E>
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-04.txt
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 19:41:26 -0000

internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
    > Title           : When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
    > Filename        : draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-04.txt

    > A diff from the previous version is available at:
    > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-04

This diff is the result of discussion with Ines over lunch today as she was
making the slides and validating my adjustments.  Specifically, the table for
storing mode was just slightly tweaked so that it looks better.

The non-storing table was updated to clarify that the destination for the
IPIP is the previous 6LR before the 6LN which does not speak RPL.

Again: my point from before, we can get rid of hop-by-hop IPIP headers by
       changing the Option Type, or by creating some signal that there
       are no non-RPL nodes.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-