Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-26: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 03:09:30PM -0500, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> FWIW, I don’t have a problem with listing all as references in the
> registry.  We just need to remember to do it if there’s another draft that
> does something similar, which we probably will when we go back to look at
> the registry.

Listing the references in the registry has been my preferred option since
we started talking about it for -turnon-rfc8138 ... I must have not
expressed myself well at that time, but I'm happy that it's gaining
traction now.  And I don't see any significant issues with having a large
number of references for the row in the registry (until it has a proper
spec).

> 
> To do it can be as simple as requesting IANA to add additional references
> to MOP 7 in the registry.

That's my sense, too.

Thanks,

Ben

> On December 17, 2020 at 2:48:41 PM, Michael Richardson (
> [e-mail]) wrote:
> 
> 
> About how to mark MOP=7
> 
> Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I have (plenty of) coffee, it's early afternoon, I had (almost) no red
> > wine at lunch... I'm ready for your review comments : ) : )
> 
> I'm thinking that there is a market for caffeinated red wine.
> Maybe that's already covered by Redbull+Vodka for some.
> 
> bk> I still feel that if we're going to incrementally add new properties to
> MOP 7, we
> bk> should list the relevant documents as references in the registry until
> MOP 7 is
> bk> fully specified. In this case we can arguably get away with not doing
> so since this
> bk> document Updates: RFC 6550 already and thus could be said to be doing
> the
> bk> reservation by modification of the core protocol, but we are not using
> that
> bk> procedure universally (e.g., for turnon-rfc8138) and it seems prudent
> to use a
> bk> consistent mechanism.
> 
> > Yes, we have a github page for that, see
> > https://github.com/roll-wg/RPLv2; I added your concern above in there.
> 
> But, Ben is suggested that turnon-rfc8138, unaware-leaves and useofrpinfo
> should all be listed under IANA MOP=7 until we actually publish RFC6550
> and/or mopex/capex.
> 
> Ben, I hadn't thought of that, and I like it.
> How do we do this?