[Roll] Last Call on MOP for AODV-RPL

Dear all,

Please let us know by 16th Oct if you have some objection to assign MOP 4
to AODV-RPL.

So far, we have these options (you can find them in the thread [1]):

*Option 1: Keep the current MOP for AODV-RPL => MOP = 5

* Option 2: Assign MOP 4 (P2P RPL) to AODV-RPL:
    -Action Points with this:
        - IANA Considerations: request to add aodv-rpl as a reference in
the registry.
        - A new section that talks about how the reuse is ok, and any
consequences of overlapping.  A requirement to not use both variations
(P2P-RPL and AODV-RPL) in the same network would be fine too.
       - Are you aware of some deployment of P2P-RPL?

*Option 3: Allocate a new MOP, deprecate MOP 4 and reuse it later on.

Please let us know your thoughts on this,

Thanks,

Ines and Dominique.
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HaqbaOhGzM5hbHEL7rpgEgskqUY/

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:58 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> [Added the draft name to the subject to benefit my filters. ;-) ]
>
> Pascal:
>
> Hi!
>
> I asked the same question (about aodv-rpl replacing/obsoleting rfc6997)
> when I did my review [1] — more than two years ago!  But sadly received no
> real reply from the WG — so we moved ahead with the document as it is now.
> Peter brought the question back in his IoT DIT review [2] earlier this
> year, but again no discussion from the WG.
>
> It is clear to see that aodv-rpl uses some of the technology from rfc6997
> and, as I understand it, a deployment would never include both.  The
> question then is valid and I would love to see more interest this time
> around.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/XXaPFyhqiUS_bpYSJT45UaLyeec/
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/f2GUlTDX4ppY1GKjQFqS8930ZYI/
>
>
> On October 6, 2021 at 2:29:30 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
> pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org) wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> RPL AODV is close to completion, congrats to the authors!
>
> Now, there’s the question of the MOP and 2 options, reuse the experimental
> one for P2P RPL, or take another.
>
>
>
> Right now, the draft takes 5 and P2P has 4 (
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#mop)
>
>
>
> My observation is that P2P is the experiment that leads to AODV, so AODV
> should deprecate it.
>
>
>
> I have not heard of real deployments, and if that happened, I do not
> expect a mix of devices that would create confusion.
>
> So would that be OK to assign MOP 4 to RPL AODV?
>
>
>
> Note that we only have up to 6 to play with, and the multicast and anycast
> supports are already on the cooking table.
>
>
>
> Keep safe,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>