Re: [Roll] Write Up draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30
Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Tue, 03 January 2023 22:36 UTC
Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.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 0A7CDC14CE57; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 14:36:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uy9ha_BZ6Bs5; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 14:36:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb32.google.com (mail-yb1-xb32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17A75C14CE2F; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 14:36:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb32.google.com with SMTP id 203so34702983yby.10; Tue, 03 Jan 2023 14:36:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=m1sv6lEQc8skwsMlBR2dRUNu3dtjefrT3YXIKtJGAIY=; b=kwSTi8XTBMFCybk0WvBpVLN+p+26PigzSYKLMLMk7dsfD7R+r6XoRZvzxwqEv4fHF+ Qwm4DzuERIPFSgmLbqiGMbiAFLuJTfUknFadXF52U45mkxQUvg0g3jSg3dSJvuxMWvK3 qa/G/2JoY3KS/saGMIajgU/nzBDeWM8q7i4kCDPK/WPOuvYOnI3SCRp7T20h+mhsrN/o beG+9VVCLWGj8/tP1LVePz/DvLSZiFyGbF/NTyPPrO7PZ+jmWQYSQB7k1bN2J+5miGCm X6NECVQ2llrQjJcbQR50quOdCY6x1tVb32Tq8BdiXtgcXVcUUSXSsRa8QTms54PBemak qRJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=m1sv6lEQc8skwsMlBR2dRUNu3dtjefrT3YXIKtJGAIY=; b=7lKc+P9D2AFFr1n6f2KmChv6bwSg2GGguBEc5PTlgTDFmJk7yOU5O4pZHKuGyi+Ukm X2P2kuFkzuqUvtcAZ8jAg7EuHL8ALRV7gO0IEtnPmkbH4QHKYGkpWE6ZfieqWffL1EKG hVZr/DUWJoPTKrXOGtCq3Xf4f/EXfvdD+A8rg2bdGhgiKjxa7oJQAd4DXrqPbvIQYIar V61NfwOIOhXIXD+PLIvGg2xEYySQ0DO+hS/Um4iDuPz1xtuMXqO737sKUXYXozhjm/Gk p6TseGrhSXu7rHywaib/8BW38SI+7O+Y2poqyoZrwLS4xhnhZLEI9wpon/754n7J9qsk Cttw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2krMTlSgZojqlVMUau6KtrSNnxl7m0RsN+Zi83bV6Qvo68K1n+9F c2ESXqXod7Y0Mc26usHi9+0fa6HvGFHKPSP+78w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXtFIhhyKxqiFU6aYBiNMl2cB0izOQtra78WCda3pivjdW1E7AcXfS6B+wcBUTOVvQq8vTMQTaKqVYI57CY8s10=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:2fcf:0:b0:75f:2c51:90e with SMTP id v198-20020a252fcf000000b0075f2c51090emr2839777ybv.67.1672785373847; Tue, 03 Jan 2023 14:36:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP+sJUei2+syMHrgp0NbBetvHV1y7ZtMrG9JY+ZX93Rnob1dwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+sJUcpY8j6NsDULjzZrkwW5+Fs=aJ5uU28e--X2S+duK+pZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+sJUcOSsm-PsrxK=9ncRwTybuGhRUpGUdM98NeESS0qx4UVA@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB4881A48A5F26BE8E60543A11D8F49@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAP+sJUcb+_7QeaH8p8FHy17Q-APejx6N4B5FTfD2ML5prfNowA@mail.gmail.com> <62EFA965-D91C-4645-A86A-0206490F366B@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <62EFA965-D91C-4645-A86A-0206490F366B@cisco.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 00:35:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUdUT8UXECEnmQho4XcjhLKwr8SPhCxXYCFpRb05XLQjhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection@ietf.org>, dominique barthel <dominique.barthel@orange.com>, roll <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fe67c805f163b177"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/pPuE9EKKwHNspL69-wd5mLt0xYo>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Write Up draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 22:36:20 -0000
Hi Pascal, Thank you very much, it is Ok for me, BR, Ines On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 11:44 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > Hello Ines > > The sentence « under the heading » derives ce from IANA ´s recommended > formulation. > Apart from that I’ll make your proposed changes as well as Alvaro’s in > github, and publish later with Alvaro’s review if that’s ok with you? > About code 8 we’ll great catch; as you say IANA will fix that, but I can > always suggest a new one. > > All the best, > > Pascal > > Le 3 janv. 2023 à 22:00, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> a > écrit : > > > Many thanks Pascal for addressing the comments, found minor issues in > version 31 (apologizes if I miss them in version 30). > > Section 11.2: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and > Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the header "IPv6 Low Power > Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#elective-6lowpan-routing-header-type > > Same as section 11.3: "...under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low > Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", should it be " ..under the header "IPv6 > Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters".." based on > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type > > Section 11.15: > > 1- ..ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry --> ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry > 2- ICMPv6 Message Type 1 --> ICMPv6 Message Type 1 "Destination > Unreachable" ? > 3- The code 8 is already assigned to "Headers too long" [ RFC8883], but I > think IANA can assign another code number > > Section 11.16: Statuss --> Status > > Many thanks and Happy New Year > > Ines. > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:57 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < > pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Dear Ines >> >> >> >> Many thanks for your in depth shepherd review! >> >> >> >> Let's see below, >> >> >> >> 1-Section 2.4.5.1 states "A RPL Local Instance ID", based on section 4.1.1 >> >> trackID definition includes global as well, thus TrackID in section >> 2.4.5.1 >> >> should it be "A RPL Local (or Global) Instance ID ...?" >> >> >> >> > It can be either though the expectation is to use local instances. I'm >> scanning through the doc to ensure its left open. >> >> >> >> 2- Section 2.4.5.3 states: "A Track that has only one path", should it >> be: "A >> >> Track that has only one path from Ingress to Egress?" >> >> >> >> > WFM >> >> >> >> 3- Section 2.4.5.8.1: The segment example, could it be formulated based on >> >> Figure 1 or Figure 6? If so, could the figure number be added into >> brackets for >> >> better understanding of the reader. >> >> >> >> > good idea, done. >> >> >> >> 4- In Section 3.5.1.1 reads: "Packets originated by A to F ....", should >> it be >> >> " Data Packets originated by A to F ...?" >> >> >> >> Well there's no checking in the forwarding operation that it is a "Data" >> packet. >> >> >> >> >> >> 5- Section 3.5.2.3: >> >> 5.1: "are sent A" --> "are sent to A" >> >> >> >> > OK >> >> >> >> 5.2: Table 16. Column P-DAO 1 to C, row Targets. It is empty, is that Ok, >> or >> >> should it be "E"? >> >> >> >> > See in section 3.5. Serial Track Signaling: "the Egress of a >> Non-Storing Mode P-DAO is an implicit Target that is not listed in the RPL >> Target Options." So there's no target signaled (no RTO) but E is implicitly >> a destination as shown in the RIB in table 17. >> >> >> >> 6- Section 3.6: the sentence "...and Inter-Leg Segments (aka >> North-South), such >> >> as Segment 2 above which joins Leg 1 and Leg 2..." >> >> >> >> 6.1: Should it be Segment 5 instead of 2? (Segment 5 is North-South?) >> >> >> >> > oups yes! Thanks 😊 >> >> >> >> 6.2: Or it is Segment 2 and both legs 1 and 2 are joined by node "E"? >> >> >> >> > E is the Egress (and I is the Ingress) >> >> >> >> 6.3: Segment 5 is composed only by nodes "B" and "H", right? >> >> >> >> > right in this picture. Could be more hops. >> >> >> >> 7- Section 4.1: "as usual" --> "as specified in >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6550/" ? >> >> >> >> > Well that's true for all IP routing, longest match in FIB. I changed to >> "as normal". >> >> >> >> 8- Section 4.1.1: "...The 'P' flag is encoded in bit position 2 (to be >> >> confirmed by IANA)..." It would be nice to point the IANA Section where it >> >> belongs, e.g. "...The 'P' flag is encoded in bit position 2 (IANA Request >> >> section 11.13 or Table 31)..." >> >> >> >> > done >> >> >> >> >> >> 9- Section 4.1.2: Same as above for "1-bit flag (position to be confirmed >> by >> >> IANA)", for IANA Section 11.14/Table 32 >> >> >> >> > done >> >> >> >> >> >> 10- Section 5.3: >> >> 10.1- Figure 16: "Type" --> "Option Type" >> >> >> >> > done >> >> >> >> 10.2- In The Field descriptions, the description of the "Flags" field is >> >> missing. It would be nice to add 1 sentence about the flags. >> >> >> >> > done >> >> >> >> 10.2.1- Is this flags field related to the IANA Request of Section 11.11? >> If >> >> so, please add it into the description. >> >> >> >> > done for SIO and VIO >> >> >> >> 11-Section 5.4: it reads "...An industrial Alliance that uses RPL for a >> >> particular use / environment MAY redefine the use of this field to fit its >> >> needs..." It would be nice to adapt it to include wider scenarios/use >> cases. >> >> For e.g. "In some scenarios such as the case of an Industrial Alliances >> that >> >> uses RPL for a particular use / environment MAY redefine the use of this >> field >> >> to fit its needs..." >> >> >> >> > done >> >> >> >> >> >> 12- Section 6.4.2: Figure 18, It would be nice to mark in the Figure the >> >> Ingress and the Egress as in Figure 19. >> >> >> >> > done >> >> >> >> 13- Section 11.11, reads "No bit is currently assigned for the PDR-ACK >> Flags." >> >> --> "No bit is currently assigned for the VIO Flags." ? >> >> >> >> > done >> >> >> >> I pushed the result as >> https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/commit/217e5c5442df82266bb4d29888e4a450278e303e, >> and resolved issue 20 since there was no contentious item. I also published >> https://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-31.html, the >> ball is now back in your camp 😊 >> >> >> >> Many thanks again, Ines, and Happy new year! >> >> >> >> Pascal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> >> *Sent:* vendredi 30 décembre 2022 21:03 >> *To:* draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection@ietf.org >> *Cc:* dominique barthel <dominique.barthel@orange.com>; roll < >> roll@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Write Up draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30 >> >> >> >> Dear authors, >> >> >> >> Please find the write up for dao projection: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection/shepherdwriteup/ >> >> >> >> There are some minor issues for version 30 created in the ticket >> https://github.com/roll-wg/dao-projection/issues/20. As soon as these >> issues are resolved, we believe, it can be submitted to the IESG. >> >> >> >> Many thanks and happy 2023!!! >> >> >> >> Ines. >> >
- [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-25 Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis
- [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-26 Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… dominique.barthel
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Michael Richardson
- [Roll] Write Up draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30 Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] Write Up draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Write Up draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Roll] Write Up draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] Write Up draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] Write Up draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Write Up draft-ietf-roll-dao-projectio… Ines Robles