Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41.txt

Michael Richardson <> Mon, 21 September 2020 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14163A0BE4 for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.835
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wfxWS0dpHrZi for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6CC03A0BDF for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FB9E1F450 for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:59:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id F227D1A01AF; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:59:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
In-reply-to: <>
References: <>
Comments: In-reply-to message dated "Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:45:54 -0700."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:59:46 -0400
Message-ID: <195789.1600714786@dooku>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:59:54 -0000 wrote:
    > A diff from the previous version is available at:

Hi, based upon a conversation this morning among the authors and useofrplinfo
and turnon-rfc8138, we arrived at the diffs above.

The point is that the changes to MOP and the rename of the
DODAG Configuration Options Flags registry would get done in the first
document that uses them, which is useofrplinfo.

I agreed to make the diffs required, and I hope that I got it right.

Some bits of the diff:

 4.3.  Updates to RFC6550: Configuration Options and Mode of Operation 
     RFC6550 section 6.7.6 describes the DODAG Configuration Option.  In 
     this option are a series of Flags in the first octet of the payload. 
     These flags are described by the DODAG Configuration Option Flags 
     registry [dodagcfg], in section 20.14 of RFC6550. 
     Anticipating future work to revise RPL relating to how the LLN and 
     DODAG is configured, this document changes the interpretation of the 
     [dodagcfg] Registry to be limited to Mode-of-Operation (MOP) 
     specific.  The MOP is described in [RFC6550] section 6.3.1.  The 
     Options Flags Registry is renamed, and applies to MOP values zero (0) 
     to six (6) only, leaving the flags reserved for MOP value seven (7). 
     In addition, this document reserves MOP value 7 for future expansion.


11.2.  Changes to DODAG Configuration Options Flags 
     This document changes the name of the "DODAG Configuration Option 
     Flags" [dodagcfg] to "DODAG Configuration Option Flags for MOP 0..6". 
11.3.  Change MOP value 7 to Reserved 
     This document changes the allocation status of the Mode of Operation 
     (MOP) [ianamop] from Unassigned to Reserved.  This change is in 
     support of future work related to capabilities.

The MOPEX document would then allocate the value, but nobody else can use it
before then.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]        |   ruby on rails    [