Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV?

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 06 October 2021 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.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 A7A4C3A0857 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 sCoQiPlnnpbr for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) (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 4AEB93A084F for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id b8so14138081edk.2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Oct 2021 12:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=d/dfrWTFv5d9xYtZ6vONP9yBhUMym6mcxdTewCHCBPU=; b=LqE/atIPFg+PjdKvK2TjP3p+0F1QbKdxvxJgs/lFYdIEUJWGpy87jKPn1XC/Srk8Va GtU90wfmnddNc6t3yrOoc+tewxVs4oPBHIlC647N/O7HByIoKQbpw5Jucft7eoAC+Gjm 1fmMRgCVgPfDrDpNPu0UMUWnXM3vlPOSlJRil+jlBkRuDswfZp7wtFNTsonnqTnhlZzR G3hM994frh4wo/5f6nROaeQvtPWkznUz9+79yjozJ4x2Lz2s/AuMjSO009ItUNFjSLtw 5A60LSfPJDXrBEpV8CkbiA3lmx6HMekqu22udE8C7vMN4wSEKhZLmPScdgAedLaNZ1WE NPsQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d/dfrWTFv5d9xYtZ6vONP9yBhUMym6mcxdTewCHCBPU=; b=Gbiw/1B/Jl9I1fA5QvzuJ0FqnUK9xViLBxVLAe512dJnytBtLJEOYuSn0ebze1gGzf YXF4okrQ5xn7SMPsVFnZDhwPBHTu6ZLagFrv9sEpm5WuhRvrt7T5FCZ+H3ZnZCsIuB0F NYg8MWi6a6RmTb6IjGn50ZFYfs4MROLUjaHOJCVzdh+lIEPCrSDkzMg0YCxqMciTdWNL UCSXmJV6OK/5JxFNCkfMBtWGqVkuCHvSXkrR2EL3zuTnqIyzKJBkTNIuyLAUFxpmA8IL STMPi/l+ouA8Qvx57RUqdVwB2RnzKimeryv5FBFhUhokxnrPDImr7/o9zx6iY78gVDaA zf0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533R8FZGMOGmC18qThqVIELxqec4Vq9+a67HPVfc/j2wJ3DFI5me i+D5mrFAJKeSocA+3hN3ZlSAEheUqyYEolE7Ybd/taVc
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8fIcuLv1nGc3eKi7II7qozsgqe6SBfMkH1QzlATpmp+MWUP7dM5UVP7vbpa3DT1khB3mcykmfDKbRD76rOdo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c041:: with SMTP id bm1mr198253ejb.280.1633549789247; Wed, 06 Oct 2021 12:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:49:48 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <692926.1633545908@dooku>
References: <CO1PR11MB48817BF59C64D77794A43F36D8B09@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <692926.1633545908@dooku>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 12:49:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESsyXcM69ZBivbaqh2n7wDUv_uohTPUwsU4pqhLQA9-CjMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/sCemmhqS7FbAWFgtH7d0oNsw70k>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV?
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: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 19:49:53 -0000

On October 6, 2021 at 2:46:25 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:


Michael:

Hi!


...
> Alvaro Retana wrote:
> > Just FYI — there would need to be some process behind a move to
> > formally replace rfc6997 (beyond updating the draft). We can deal with
> > that if we need to.
>
> So, obsoletes RFC6997 then?

If that's what the WG wants then yes.

rfc6997 is required by rfc7733 (Applicability Statement...Home
Automation and Building Control), so we would need to Update that.

Also, rfc6998 (Measurement of Routing Metrics in LLNs) depends on
rfc6997: "...the utility of this mechanism is dependent on the
existence of P2P-RPL [RFC6997]."  We would need to see if rfc6998 also
works with aodv-rpl and Update or Obsolete.

None of this is a showstopper (from my point of view), but it does
require some work and most likely a new IETF LC (at least).


The alternative (just thinking out loud) would be to specify the use
of the same MOP along with some text explaining why it is not an issue
that the value is shared -- and what could happen if both device types
were mixed.  This option should require less work/process because
we're not affecting other documents.


Alvaro.