[Roll] Comments on draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-09

"Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com> Mon, 23 December 2019 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
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 6A9C412008A for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 01:23:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4JCivBTAXV9 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 01:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0630C120046 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 01:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C3B16935CD4E5159C903 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:23:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM421-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:22:52 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by dggemm421-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 17:22:49 +0800
From: "Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
To: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-09
Thread-Index: AdW5cQcc12mzHhBPSAydPP/oeu3Nqg==
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:22:48 +0000
Message-ID: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E0113F924@DGGEMM506-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/uJ_hC6y3yO78xa-sUYHptWwUzDk>
Subject: [Roll] Comments on draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-09
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: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:23:06 -0000

Hello DAO-projection authors,

I've read the latest version of the draft. Great efforts! Please find my comments below for your consideration.

1. Why do you choose to extend RPL instead of designing a new separate protocol to realize the establishment of a path? Technically, extending RPL works for sure. But if you look outside the IOT domain, the PCE have a separate protocol, i.e. PCEP, to establish the paths on the devices. 

2. The titles of the subsections in section 6 are misleading. When I looked at the title "Non-storing/Storing mode projected route", I misunderstood them into "Route projection in non-storing/storing mode". Actually, until I reached at the appendix, I realized that they means the projected route itself is source-routed or hop-by-hop (no matter strict or loose).  Do you think it is necessary to add some clarification or to change the titles?

3. The following specification is not accurate in some cases: " In the uncompressed form the source of the packet would be self, the destination would be the first Via Address in the SRVIO, and the SRH would contain the list of the remaining Via Addresses and then the Target".
It is true if RPL is running in storing mode, otherwise, another encapsulation takes place to indicate the explicit route to the via address, just like you have said in the preceding paragraph. And the said explicit route should be projected as well. Please consider combining the two paragraphs to make it correct. 

4. You've mentioned that the root can be the egress of a path. Does it mean that the upward route needs to be projected in some cases, given the fact that most of the examples given in the draft are downward or transversal routes? Could you give an example on that situation? 

Best regards,