Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits
Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 12 December 2019 01:12 UTC
Return-Path: <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
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 412E21201EF for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:12:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SB_GIF_AND_NO_URIS=2.199, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 gzQpUojF_zta for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:12:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D1601200F4 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:12:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id y19so319014lfl.9 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:12:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=foH9iF0M0NpEok2biUHjx9OFXaWGQ0bfn3+rLedOl7A=; b=RtJCJGSA/RNXIGGTYzuPEDAv2HQu5jbPxJt3TwT8RzEdrjgmgfDU4Uqi3QmG7vvVEI sKtWKhSDW3tgsDn9zdfJzb5GoWzWIISUi/fnm037UdvDuaSW16ZJfHQb5LwuMcmGoLh/ +94xl2bdkOMHw78iGFeqhe/TqDIzH/lkeYF/qwkz+9aykaR99z+9qRs7JIldmcSgoGyl ZSokdhwPw/UaFAy7d39sGkx9SH2IA6wiHRr/r7bIdkjULpRofIicuxRALGok5JwQuQXD /BmqbyMn4p9meViTeyWae5LK99/cxzbKG6HrSVF2qy8a8Ew0bmMn4Yscv4aGVVXIkx29 tiaw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=foH9iF0M0NpEok2biUHjx9OFXaWGQ0bfn3+rLedOl7A=; b=RiEegR8CdD7KHjvHkc1Y28pn9FHzfyyxdiRRYXu35Le7Xa6CTybR4Zeedydon0jSpy eQYI+f82jd8sTy6ildhj9iVQ/9OwhVilnOgLt8zsuQdiG/aml1Y+tPB+RtUTFRCZHs8s 0bZf8QWOveAIz1SNaD7M6z4gkfYXMCVQi8MrBYlCvta93vTFphEJjzPVMjg8S7Zes+wR TGVtG70sDxjHHooc1Jwt8tDQNIciLCGoXLFuL1MuaXTdR02zgJ3N+oapKeUOlP3Bwf/g BDf/0VsiN0FVejpVldEZRFwJyoTdh+Tzuk+/QVOnTA4z2XAGRmZ60qMJv5hMlq2dR6Sb HjNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUVpEX1OuFE0wQ48yvBWiXoHd/0n0ExSuInaqNygUmBMDimYR8X l1Mmv/LFyVSSas0uYqUSAZPKTgCeP2PmrzEryj7l8L0f
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwAV4y/BLGjraI29lBCPoTY5IB+wcaSy386pj0Cb9xBHF7r8/ktS4FWO8wuzRxU6WnY5/+3U/J/CqEXV7uOBiI=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:43a7:: with SMTP id t7mr3758880lfl.125.1576113170519; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:12:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB3565E131BDE051D0AD920F84D85A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565E131BDE051D0AD920F84D85A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:12:39 +0800
Message-ID: <CAO0Djp1UW+hmvN0FE7c+GW2jqdwrGVJ-1JPXE4WBQH=MgVUXVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000a8205d0599777109"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/oD6-O4SKWa5Uv118wtT3Px6-f6k>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 01:12:54 -0000
> > > > The proposal on the table was: > > - change turnon-rfc8138 to say that the configuration bit only applies to > MOP < 7 (RPL v1) > > - use-of-rpl-info is edited to say the same thing > > - we create a IANA registry with a MOP column so the bits depend on the > MOP. MOPext could be the place for introducing this registry. > > > > I’d like to check if the ML is in line with this approach. > [RJ] I am inline with these points. I would like to confirm a point here... Reclaiming the turnon-8138 flag in MOP>=7 would mean that 8138 is _mandatorily_ supported in the nodes above MOP>=7 such that they no more depend on this flag. This in itself is a bigger decision! Is my understanding correct? While the advantages of 8138 are obvious in non-storing MOP case, they are less impacting/obvious in storing MOP case.
- [Roll] Reclaiming the bits Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits Ines Robles