[Roll] RFC6553 ?

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 12 March 2020 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F328D3A0DE4 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.87
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VtWc8b-H6UEX for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BF2A3A0DFD for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de []) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E1F548049 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:20:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 08453440040; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:20:18 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:20:17 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: roll@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200312002017.GP54522@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/sNwvzpFprciiY7yZwbo2C8O66vE>
Subject: [Roll] RFC6553 ?
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 Mar 2020 00:20:44 -0000

Quick question: I can not see RFC6553 to be deprecated or superceeded in
RFC Index. Nevertheless:



Couldn't find quickly an explanation for this.

Can anyone fill me in, pls. ?

Specifically: In my ANIMA ACP draft i tried to unwind all those RPL TLAs
like RPI and that had me include a sentence about RFC6553 being one RPI
option, only to the extend that we do not want to use it though (informational),
so i hope thats fine whether or not RFC6553 is not recommended anymore
in general.