Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Cool. 

I created a pull request, also fixing the area tag. Seems you did too, so now we are conflicting : ) 
I'll let you handle it with the change that you prefer.

All the best,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Rahul Jadhav
> Sent: jeudi 5 septembre 2019 08:56
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor
> 
> The erratum seems to have been reported long back.
> Final updates: https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-
> invalidation/commit/9fff6e6051c2a2560bddd3f5097bf19149edd52a
> 
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 12:01, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Rahul
> >
> >
> >
> > RPL says
> >
> >
> >
> >      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.
> >
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Rahul Jadhav <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: jeudi 5 septembre 2019 05:44
> > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; Routing Over Low
> > power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you Pascal for the changes and pull request.
> >
> > Have merged the changes.
> >
> > I made two minor changes, please check if there are ok:
> >
> > https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/commit/8af38e8
> > f44b963987ee6754d644d6ef70409462f
> >
> >
> >
> > If yes, then please use the latest xml from
> >
> > https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/dr
> > aft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao.xml
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rahul
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Roll <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ines Robles
> > <mariainesrobles=[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 10:33 AM
> > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: roll <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Pascal,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much for your hard work.
> >
> >
> >
> > Could you please convert the draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16.xml to txt
> [https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/] and put them here https://github.com/roll-
> wg/efficient-route-invalidation, so people can read the complete document
> with the proposed changes, thus we can have a last call.
> >
> >
> >
> > Many thanks again,
> >
> >
> >
> > Ines and Peter.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> >
> >
> > We are holding NP DAO for a change that does not impact the behavior of
> the node but improves traceability.
> >
> > I would like to confirm consensus on this change rapidly so we can give the
> doc back to RFC editor.
> >
> >
> >
> > The proposed change is as follows:
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > diff --git "a/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-
> efficient-npdao-15.xml"
> "b/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-efficient-
> npdao-16.xml"
> >
> > index 8a0acca..2ed0920 100644
> >
> > --- "a/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-
> efficient-npdao-15.xml"
> >
> > +++ "b/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-
> efficient-npdao-16.xml"
> >
> > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
> >
> > <?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>
> >
> > <!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
> >
> > <!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
> >
> > -<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-15"
> > ipr="trust200902">
> >
> > +<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16"
> > +ipr="trust200902">
> >
> >    <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
> >
> >       ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
> >
> >       you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
> >
> > @@ -582,11 +582,12 @@
> >
> >
> >
> >              <t>
> >
> >                  This document specifies a change in the Transit
> > Information Option to
> >
> > -                contain the "Invalidate previous route" (I) flag. This I-flag signals
> >
> > +                contain the "Invalidate previous route" (I) flag.
> > + This 'I' flag signals
> >
> >                  the common ancestor node to generate a DCO on behalf
> > of the
> >
> > -                target node. The I-flag is carried in the Transit Information
> >
> > +                target node with a RPL Status of 130 indicating that
> > + the address
> >
> > +                has moved. The 'I' flag is carried in the Transit
> > + Information
> >
> >                  Option which augments the reachability information
> > for a given
> >
> > -                set of RPL Target(s). Transit Information Option with I-flag
> >
> > +                set of RPL Target(s). Transit Information Option with
> > + 'I' flag
> >
> >                  set should be carried in the DAO message when route
> >
> >                  invalidation is sought for the corresponding target(s).
> >
> >              </t>
> >
> > @@ -615,8 +616,8 @@
> >
> >              </t>
> >
> >              <t>
> >
> >                  The common ancestor node SHOULD generate a DCO
> > message in
> >
> > -                response to this I-flag when it sees that the routing
> >
> > -                adjacencies have changed for the target. The I-flag is
> >
> > +                response to this 'I' flag when it sees that the
> > + routing
> >
> > +                adjacencies have changed for the target. The 'I' flag
> > + is
> >
> >                  intended to give the target node control over its own
> > route
> >
> >                  invalidation, serving as a signal to request DCO generation.
> >
> >              </t>
> >
> > @@ -638,7 +639,7 @@
> >
> > 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   |
> >
> > +| RPLInstanceID |K|D|   Flags   |  RPL  Status  | DCOSequence   |
> >
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> > |                                                               |
> >
> > +                                                               +
> >
> > @@ -683,8 +684,15 @@
> >
> >                  the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
> >
> >              </t>
> >
> >              <t>
> >
> > -                Reserved: 8-bit unused field. The field MUST be initialized to
> >
> > -                zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
> >
> > +                RPL Status: The RPL Status as defined in section
> > + 6.5.1 of <xref
> >
> > +                target="RFC6550"/>.
> >
> > +                Indicative of the reason why the DCO happened, the
> > + RPL Status
> >
> > +                MUST NOT be changed as the DCO is propagated down the
> > + route
> >
> > +                being invalidated.
> >
> > +                This value is informative and does not affect the
> > + behavior of
> >
> > +                the receiver. In particular, unknown values are
> > + ignored by the
> >
> > +                receiver.
> >
> > +                Only Rejection Codes (value above 128) are expected in a DCO.
> >
> >              </t>
> >
> >              <t>
> >
> >                  DCOSequence: 8-bit field incremented at each unique
> > DCO message
> >
> > @@ -759,7 +767,7 @@
> >
> > 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 |D|   Flags     |  DCOSequence  |    Status     |
> >
> > +| RPLInstanceID |D|   Flags     |  DCOSequence  | DCO-ACK Status|
> >
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> > |                                                               |
> >
> > +                                                               +
> >
> > @@ -788,8 +796,10 @@
> >
> >                      copied from the DCOSequence received in the DCO message.
> >
> >                  </t>
> >
> >                  <t>
> >
> > -                    Status: Indicates the completion. Status 0 is defined as
> >
> > -                    unqualified acceptance in this specification. Status 1 is
> >
> > +                    DCO-ACK Status: Indicates the completion. A value
> > + of 0 is
> >
> > +                    defined as
> >
> > +                    unqualified acceptance in this specification. A
> > + value of 1
> >
> > +                    is
> >
> >                      defined as "No routing-entry for the Target
> > found". The
> >
> >                      remaining status values are reserved as rejection codes.
> >
> >                  </t>
> >
> > @@ -910,7 +920,7 @@
> >
> >                      nodes will generate their respective DAOs to
> > update their
> >
> >                      paths, and the previous route invalidation for
> > those nodes
> >
> >                      should work in the similar manner described for
> > switching
> >
> > -                    node. The dependent node may set the I-flag in the Transit
> >
> > +                    node. The dependent node may set the 'I' flag in
> > + the Transit
> >
> >                      Information Option as part of regular DAO so as
> > to
> >
> >                      request invalidation of previous route from the
> > common
> >
> >                      ancestor node.
> >
> > @@ -920,7 +930,7 @@
> >
> >                      of their parents in turn have decided to switch
> > their
> >
> >                      parent. Thus for route invalidation the dependent
> > nodes may
> >
> >                      choose to always set the 'I' flag in all its DAO
> > message's
> >
> > -                    Transit Information Option. Note that setting the I-flag is
> >
> > +                    Transit Information Option. Note that setting the
> > + 'I' flag is
> >
> >                      not counterproductive even if there is no
> > previous
> >
> >                      route to be invalidated.
> >
> >                  </t>
> >
> > @@ -1103,7 +1113,7 @@
> >
> >
> >
> >          <t>
> >
> >              IANA is requested to allocate bit 1 from the Transit
> > Information
> >
> > -            Option Flags registry for the I-flag (<xref
> target="transit_opt_changes"/>)
> >
> > +            Option Flags registry for the 'I' flag (<xref
> > + target="transit_opt_changes"/>)
> >
> >          </t>
> >
> >          <section title="New Registry for the Destination Cleanup
> > Object (DCO) Flags">
> >
> >              <t>
> >
> > @@ -1210,22 +1220,29 @@
> >
> >              This document introduces the ability for a common
> > ancestor node to
> >
> >              invalidate a route on behalf of the target node. The
> > common
> >
> >              ancestor node could be directed to do so by the target
> > node using
> >
> > -            the I-flag in DCO's Transit Information Option. However, the common
> >
> > +            the 'I' flag in DCO's Transit Information Option.
> > + However, the common
> >
> >              ancestor node is in a position to unilaterally initiate
> > the route
> >
> >              invalidation since it possesses all the required state
> > information,
> >
> >              namely, the Target address and the corresponding Path Sequence..
> >
> >              Thus a rogue common ancestor node could initiate such an
> >
> >             invalidation and impact the traffic to the target node.
> >
> >          </t>
> >
> > +        <t> The DCO carries a RPL Status value, which is informative.
> > + New Status
> >
> > +            values may be created over time and a node will ignore an
> > + unknown
> >
> > +            Status value. Which makes it so that the RPL Status field
> > + may be
> >
> > +            used as a cover channel. But the channel only works once
> > + since the
> >
> > +            message destroys its own medium, that is the existing
> > + route that it
> >
> > +            is removing.
> >
> > +        </t>
> >
> >          <t>
> >
> > -            This document also introduces an I-flag which is set by the target
> >
> > +            This document also introduces an 'I' flag which is set by
> > + the target
> >
> >              node and used by the ancestor node to initiate a DCO if
> > the
> >
> >              ancestor sees an update in the route adjacency. However,
> >
> >              this flag could be spoofed by a malicious 6LR in the path
> > and can
> >
> >              cause invalidation of an existing active path. Note that
> > invalidation
> >
> >              will happen only if the other conditions such as Path
> > Sequence
> >
> >              condition is also met. Having said that, such a malicious
> > 6LR may
> >
> > -            spoof a DAO on behalf of the (sub) child with the I-flag set and
> >
> > +            spoof a DAO on behalf of the (sub) child with the 'I'
> > + flag set and
> >
> >              can cause route invalidation on behalf of the (sub) child node..
> >
> >              Note that, using existing mechanisms offered by <xref
> >
> >                  target="RFC6550"/>, a malicious 6LR might also spoof
> > a DAO with
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Chairs, could we please last call or whatever so we can move on?
> >
> >
> >
> > Many thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll