Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01.txt Wed, 24 June 2020 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D542A3A10EC for <>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gn0c0oQeCZh1 for <>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DCD73A10BE for <>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.68]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 49sV116wd0zylj; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:06:29 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1593018390; bh=ojGoeCY+gE68bTSIdamegEbZhe3yvbHzDuRr0JBXFxA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=gp0UY7e3Tz/RF2fvhCIwSHINcKQyhJApmSBwJIyLqy6ayEeiKodEq1iCv1ktsqAzz iPqZovA0kQRnZ8asa2G+7qsBA5kiZqbMdY7U1Tn0uwYoCsr85iCk8c6H0NaRvxzH2K iCKhz/Agh7UmGxaJDxGZjKOb//Lb5huMhF4iRceiL2nT2ko7DcVxd+hvF3nACbLqiY TPFWi4JGZRO+07wuyczOne/9q1xU0LMMZPRQYq66rSjld0Y1vr1A7XRn0upwFFR31d Ncnh8k1uL9BXHQsRdk/ESyQ8YCZt72cL+4sOqFNcoOYsMmjQimejSNxCXdx6h//roP b7Cc0usYH8i7g==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.23]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 49sV1166cZz1xp9; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:06:29 +0200 (CEST)
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHWSknMLkuEE24jEECYp7ILfifjDw==
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:06:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <MAXPR01MB24936A309AA7CCC6E21E0AB9A9860@MAXPR01MB2493.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DB1952B57689Ddominiquebarthelorangecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:06:34 -0000

Hello Rahul,

Food for discussion at the upcoming interim:
I'm surprised the Extended Control Option is recognized by the X bit being set, where X is bit 6 of the Option Type (or bit number 1 counting from 0 left to right in the byte).
"Option Type 0x40 to 0x7F are thus applicable only as extended options."
What is your intention regarding Option Type 0x80-0xFF?
With the current definition, it follows that "Option Type 0xC0 to 0xFF are thus applicable only as extended options." as well.
Or should X be a two bits field, where 0b00 designates the legacy Control Option and anything different from 0b00 the Extended Control Option?
I'm assuming the Extended option is better, and we don't want to save have of the space for the legacy one.


De : Roll <<>> on behalf of Rahul Jadhav <<>>
Répondre à : "<>" <<>>
Date : Friday 5 June 2020 09:44
À : "<>" <<>>
Objet : Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01.txt

Hello All,

The primary update is about the Extended Control Option format that we discussed during the interim.

From: Roll <<>> on behalf of<> <<>>
Sent: 05 June 2020 03:40 PM
To:<> <<>>
Cc:<> <<>>
Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Mode of Operation extension
        Authors         : Rahul Arvind Jadhav
                          Pascal Thubert
                          Michael Richardson
        Filename        : draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01.txt
        Pages           : 8
        Date            : 2020-06-05

   RPL allows different mode of operations which allows nodes to have a
   consensus on the basic primitives that must be supported to join the
   network.  The MOP field in [RFC6550] is of 3 bits and is fast
   depleting.  This document extends the MOP for future use.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

There are also htmlized versions available at:

A diff from the previous version is available at:

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

Roll mailing list<>


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.