Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 10 September 2019 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 9197D1201DC for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 LRJSTmaA7eZl for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E45A1201CE for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [80.233.46.196]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 222D91F47F; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:07:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 560544897; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:08:11 +0100 (WEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <MN2PR11MB3565D2139143EFF0F43055E3D8BB0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB3565DAEEF4DD78D732EDE17DD8B80@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>, <CAP+sJUc+UMsqDQvyc1kaM8zNmq43jB9zNRXZ7eijyB9XjcomiQ@mail.gmail.com> <BM1PR01MB26126BE7BC1F809C34E0B5DBA9BB0@BM1PR01MB2612.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <MN2PR11MB3565D2139143EFF0F43055E3D8BB0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> message dated "Thu, 05 Sep 2019 06:29:38 -0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:08:11 +0100
Message-ID: <16825.1568131691@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/lnrZrJioaF4s2EcnNHLTV9ged3c>
Subject: Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor
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: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:07:39 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    >      1-127: Not an outright rejection; the node sending the DAO-ACK is
    > willing to act as a parent, but the receiving node is suggested to find
    > and use an alternate parent instead.  127-255: Rejection; the node
    > sending the DAO-ACK is unwilling to act as a parent.


    > Note that the 127 as a rejection is a typo. The intent was that 127 is
    > not a rejection. We could write an erratum for this I guess so
    > rejection starts at 128.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3287


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