Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status

[Rahul Jadhav <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Pascal, Alvaro for the edits.

@Pascal Thubert, Regarding "('E' flag set and 'A' flag not set)", this
may confuse the reader and also may not be relevant for this spec
since it is ok for an implementer to simply use 0/1 as a Status value
without the understanding of E/A flags in unaware-leaves. Can we skip
that part since anyways we are referencing unaware-leaves?

@Alvaro Retana, I will not submit unless explicitly told to do.

Thanks,
Rahul

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 20:47, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> > >
> > >