Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

The last part (“This specification adds…”) is not correct, as
unaware-leaves is the one defining the value.  Maybe “This specification
uses…” would be more appropriate.


Rahul:  Please don’t submit anything yet.  Because IANA already created the
registry (from the efficient-npdao draft), I want to check with them what
is the right thing to do: if we just delete the registry, or if we need to
leave it and deprecate it somehow.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On October 28, 2020 at 11:06:39 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
[e-mail]) wrote:

Hello Rahul

I believe that you need to indicate that the status is a RPL Status and
refer to section 6.5.1. of RPL " Format of the DAO-ACK Base Object". I'm
sure Alvaro will propose an improvement but my knee jerk:

Before:

Status: Indicates the completion status. Section 12.5 of
[I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves] defines the status values. A value of 0 is
defined as unqualified acceptance. A value of 1 is defined as "No
routing-entry for the indicated Target found".

After:

Status: RPL Status indicating the completion. The RPL Status is defined in
section 6.5.1. of [RFC 6550] and updated in
section 6.3 of [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves]. This specification adds the
RPL rejection value ('E' flag set and 'A' flag not set) of 1, defined as
"No routing-entry for the indicated Target found".

Works?

Take care;

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rahul Jadhav <[e-mail]>
> Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2020 13:43
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Routing
> Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Deprecating DCO status
>
> Hi Pascal, Alvaro,
>
> I am mostly clear on the changes required. Please find attached an
HTML-diff
> for the suggested changes.
> The only concern for me was if we remove the registry where would the
Status
> 1 indicating "No routing-entry for the indicated Target found".
> But I see that unaware-leaves has made an update to its IANA section to
> include this status. So it works.
> Thus, I am referencing unaware-leaves for Status values.
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 14:44, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Rahul:
> >
> >
> >
> > Attracting your attention on the particular point below in Alvaro’s AD
review
> of unaware leaves:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > So we should update the NPDAO draft and remove that entry shouldn't
> we?
> >
> > > > Note that NPDAO is already in missref because of this draft
> >
> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C310
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Also, the specification of the DAO-ACK needs to be changed to at
> > > least make it
> >
> > > clear that the "DCO-ACK Status" field refers to the "RPL Status".
> >
> > >
> >
> > > About deprecating the registry... We should ask IANA what to do:
> > > they already
> >
> > > created the registry, but the efficient-npdao hasn't been published
> > > as an
> >
> > > RFC. I don't know if we just delete §6.2 or if we have to formally
> > > deprecate the
> >
> > > registry (possible in this document).
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Please ack to this to make sure we're in sync before asking IANA.
> >
> >
> >
> > The change Alvaro and I want to make in the efficient npdao draft is
> > that the DCO status is now of the same type as the RPL status in DAO
> > ACK, and should be specified as such in
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18#section
> > -4.3.4
> >
> > Which means that we do not need the registry that we ask for in
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18#page-17
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you agree?
> >
> >
> >
> > Keep safe!
> >
> >
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> >