IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] In what way is roll-unaware-leaves updating npdao?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 07 October 2020 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 9C71A3A15C5 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 BLHFPbd02exO for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A67AA3A15B9 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8160F389C6; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 20:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ssIBD1q1fAl2; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 20:39:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CF9389C5; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 20:39:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDC0C3B; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 20:34:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsyoxKOnedz60L7ukJgPq+VFk3y5fCkLiXv4cA9VeCBxTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMMESszw4SuUQtchiqk-o7Z=62X+U2af4==X5S_=rJ-3y4Dn=w@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356593481245BC85A03D4003D83F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsxgYifi+U=fTdFk5Fz+a1ArbFUzxBbeDeORhk30n2N3Ew@mail.gmail.com> <28970.1602008280@localhost> <CAMMESsyoxKOnedz60L7ukJgPq+VFk3y5fCkLiXv4cA9VeCBxTg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 20:34:16 -0400
Message-ID: <24657.1602030856@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/uOK0F50PC0jgzYNCHFBkbnN1VEg>
Subject: Re: [Roll] In what way is roll-unaware-leaves updating npdao?
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, 07 Oct 2020 00:34:25 -0000

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Just to make sure, we’re agreeing…right?

I was disagreeing with:

    >> [major] To me, Updating an RFC means that the implementations of that
    >> RFC should also implement this one.  In this case, there would be an
    >> expectation that all nodes that support the DCO would support the
    >> Non-Storing MOP as well.  Is that what is intended?

That's not what's expected.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email