From nobody Tue Oct 3 07:10:10 2017 Return-Path: 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 400A3132F8F for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 07:10:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com 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 qR_V8NxgLBe5 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 07:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4609D1320DC for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 07:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x232.google.com with SMTP id e9so2334317iod.13 for ; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 07:10:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nTwN8KSqe5z9No0YyIU9Vww6jrm5XlVJrt8TDDyJhLY=; b=XqH4edp4rtRhGHLOv4KuqZPC4fvGEmhD1zif8T7Deo44iZOH+3W/SMogdJBcBTx3lN muBD7c/ne3xGdOpf6re6OMHQvf6+LIc3kHqtbjU1L/0CTfjUA0SYkUJTzaSKd+MHdcgk Ld44mgzr4jDLfblxTVfOzkstXTk5elodHOn0gGxonaI8CYVpNX9JEEAW349QmJtnrGyu Vp7tuaXSIiAgjjQ0HreCjFPVTUYumvNvJbgVqiQTt/JjQ42GRYSkjacINtjq12mBAo9H ePDeQu0SB2y1m5do+ZVGdQDiH3eKuThUOZtXjRF98Rol48WbDKYMWTE3ZUGZo+1fhRkV s/rg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nTwN8KSqe5z9No0YyIU9Vww6jrm5XlVJrt8TDDyJhLY=; b=bY39Uk48FrTZ2Zm6InVjbyLgdhDDuAKCEnEznOXIAvsQF1+/A6+Oj50Sm+1iKcsL/R 61QhOwYk1waaL+JLTKlHgVwuHVB3PJZwmiVkXcXlvJg7kH/Zqk0Ezae9nn4EizI3EWjt 15/12BpYGsMH8DZxXSvGoNxqTjXAgIHP4uov4AHMeYXQOPWYVI4rq29d5tbXYSMUzInZ suPpLcMPlMJGxcsv77BLizMpX5mJaSk1trWRclGsZsh0NeO6o22nnnHGbEGzPBcJi/v+ 4AcH0mLy9LieS0ZIh9Gd7N3HL53sRLqDF2y3mLHEIBPUFBV1eF1uQMzWs3o1fkTAhs+K QmXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVesvsT2DDN0xbKplBstJ/a8C1iFg60NG2GGwRiuB26VIuKxZMJ vZN/oAFRnKbUKCZO6ry6lzcu8rh2iV/TlYU/0Jv95g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QC42gdnCjlbmEYg8ntnvMkrBVfc44UW/5f2o++O137yuDe/HDJifE6IUlHIMIDcH818jLEGrYpX2XbBP5RlN7g= X-Received: by 10.107.39.141 with SMTP id n135mr29487126ion.180.1507039807179; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 07:10:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.147.218 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 07:10:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Ines Robles Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:10:06 +0300 Message-ID: To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114099aa5ea164055aa50ce1" Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Shepherd request for draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-02 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 14:10:09 -0000 --001a114099aa5ea164055aa50ce1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear all, We would like to know please, who wants to shepherd draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-02. Please let us know before 10/10. Thank you, Ines + Peter. --001a114099aa5ea164055aa50ce1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

We would like to know please,= who wants to shepherd=C2=A0draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-02.

Please let us know before 10/10.

Thank you,=

Ines + Peter.
--001a114099aa5ea164055aa50ce1-- From nobody Tue Oct 3 09:12:53 2017 Return-Path: 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 EE3E2134EF6 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:12:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com 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 MCsTDZLtev3Y for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x22f.google.com (mail-io0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DB8D134EF0 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v36so8123018ioi.1 for ; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 09:12:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=23HrL2SXUn1mXhoavVfEuTCmoUcjvLK1Wwxq+Cr78mc=; b=UmR4YXkriJ8npF7EC/HMWzD4+TEc+86B78bqBUii9JJJ0jFnkDDL+3wpcWbWWZN+NC eBGMFbDaKqal/EDR6FePp49iX0zUQjSA7RT/31V1EaOrZkJm5nGD4udv0U01w6hNtyjE h165XLlkNeD7jNP+kbqXig/nWxozDEST2Mel6AtA40LhLYu1bNjc14H/MV4HrBjXYsRg XGQG89RuMdD4gj2sXoS51wClWCgl2w8Jo8kgeE/RV5XEQcpX5u7Cw2Rok9NOwgb7sRLl C2sKps6cAkl5cFnA6dqJscQFg0U4Ln/LNSEsMi7WyqlQUCo8qd0eXJKIX9wue4D5soa9 w/fw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=23HrL2SXUn1mXhoavVfEuTCmoUcjvLK1Wwxq+Cr78mc=; b=S2VgStIkdVmpIoazckX0UqNjZQB11/N9Ux/kY3+/K9z4LC+9y5mzwesTaGY6yU2Q4E zv0gIjhrtoaIw4sg1f26K0nU3inOEn5yGQ9PAe5cSGUpKInLjBP9QG+B2uY2eE8UaGhw 9kSrfsLtlRv7hUgfl/H9RMple6lXWvbN75cH1UShPF7fJzDjfL7zmBxkXFkluWtULLDp y8wcDcqEnSu4WBofc5TxZHIgh8I8OKEm8Nb2vrR5OD+ZLegQIHO9+2y5W5gGKCt4O7ys QN/8DHkD/wsYkKhr2DdDHk1W87tSozGBLXVil15Ow4wr0a+GiiapIfq6Kf78IQilEsbc Ap3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUBPje11Na3uPiIKg4IRxiBxPuL3juKGbmNAjfT2jgiA5e8w0qg XuBFAE5Tn0J9IyEvhhtJAke9CV1dmpSOd4jmaWQKPg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBMQShTeG9idhVh+Rj8OKOHi2U5645dxH8c8B++Mfj/h5wn3DFHzguF7w2OdPq4Gj9qkOE8FUZEAHCuQM8bORw= X-Received: by 10.107.10.218 with SMTP id 87mr31826447iok.285.1507047168896; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 09:12:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.147.218 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:12:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Ines Robles Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:12:48 +0300 Message-ID: To: roll Cc: peter van der Stok , aretana.ietf@yahoo.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f989c297bd4055aa6c399" Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] IPR in draft draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 16:12:52 -0000 --001a113f989c297bd4055aa6c399 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear all, Please note that draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao has two IPRs attached[1]: Date: 2017-09-06 ID: 3063 Statement: Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao Date: 2017-03-08 ID: 2961 Statement: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-jadhav-roll-efficient-npdao Let us know if you have concerns about that. Thank you, Ines + Peter [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao --001a113f989c297bd4055aa6c399 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,=C2=A0

Please note that=C2=A0d= raft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao has two IPRs attached[1]:

Date: 2017-09-06 =C2=A0ID: 3063 Statement:=C2=A0Cisco's Statemen= t about IPR related to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao

=
Date: 2017-03-08 =C2=A0ID: 2961 Statement: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's S= tatement about IPR related to draft-jadhav-roll-efficient-npdao
<= br>
Let us know if you have concerns about that.

Thank you,

Ines + Peter
--001a113f989c297bd4055aa6c399-- From nobody Tue Oct 3 09:17:09 2017 Return-Path: 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 6FB4D134F13 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:17:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com 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 5DNr0txxeElR for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74938134F01 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id v62so1842706itd.1 for ; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 09:16:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e6+sctkJP7AhDWJ1+yjZCYs7/ekL86BHm4xba+I3yfI=; b=ldZn4sueTMHyk9iY2kBR0OQBcWBuSzQ+jxM5vLEIt5MprX9eQQujuUlVWskq4TOoGN Ql3+7cQemXaNV6z+gPUCHXn4sbcDeL1rDVxdoaUrhbh2VfFGq4XyJpuJEIRt91F48Q+o Vj2ao4p32r0ZOoi47/CXVs/rLB2lMkBD3pDJj2FlJVu+VhKQc3KvKYx98bKqyyf1Zki7 vCgGBe8+uK5e98HyMA5xtdgkQYoi+M/3fBFvDZpuNsHfq/NiPU3AYhWZwkl472DvZbxq pRxE76e7GG8Db+gcvN5S6mLpQ7ZDVFeEFdli5XmdKiKnkjIHIBtK5iNgE5RUDtzipQ8Z LMEA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e6+sctkJP7AhDWJ1+yjZCYs7/ekL86BHm4xba+I3yfI=; b=f26fD9Fp3mGXaLua6U7jyl8SHfOX37PY5qJOXORefz2d15+gMgYTgLrVVlOuArXSSw BuKCVJfhd34AQ8zra/GFhOJwPeZGI3o4OWr6903ZWYtlDwNArtXRUaRdvrH5Vrmd7/YC P32o5zFd6nWLRJLw53IPXUtvW8slQs67xiXEI7lZMHpRDhA6iCRWcom4NRLi5l1DUqjY MC8tzuy7wXkKaOwU5sEWpauAEyQeOz7Bd1yX6PCAItgH6Hzy6Rj2eu7wK+uM3enhAyHY xlXjYMceHVLKWENk5LVhd8tfvaXuzIKRMCoZrFzfaTQ1kfSU3VbgBJHbRzar6kmRTOM7 B+Ew== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXINnzQbZF4fvYd1ezWhdLfBf7q2cxe7W00/NtEGAOQXGNw+Age HnI+nm46o224JxaN8Cl2gb1YRJtdqIo11XmzIVzerw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDOi4LqpO2YG6oblF27SXzGK17Epy1xvivZpIRtdtyTCMRv8mRjzm7Y9KYJyPxHt98GoTgm+jPz3atcjtssYQs= X-Received: by 10.36.74.9 with SMTP id k9mr26587778itb.145.1507047415489; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 09:16:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.147.218 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:16:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Ines Robles Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:16:55 +0300 Message-ID: To: roll Cc: peter van der Stok , aretana.ietf@yahoo.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11405c1edc2a81055aa6d16d" Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] IPR on draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 16:17:02 -0000 --001a11405c1edc2a81055aa6d16d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear all, Please note that the draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection has one IPR attached[1]: Date: 2015-07-02 ID: 2620 Statement: Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-thubert-roll-dao-projection Let us know if you have concerns about that. Thank you, Ines + Peter [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection --001a11405c1edc2a81055aa6d16d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,=C2=A0
Please note that the draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection=C2=A0has one IPR atta= ched[1]:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date:=C2=A02015-07-02
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ID:=C2=A02620=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Statement:= =C2=A0Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-thubert-roll-da= o-projection

Let us know if you have concerns about that.<= /div>

Thank you,

Ines + Peter
--001a11405c1edc2a81055aa6d16d-- From nobody Mon Oct 9 00:47:02 2017 Return-Path: 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 4A8B2134BB0 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:47:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.079 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 W7nykovMcaIE for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net [194.109.24.22]) (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 59772134B9C for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([IPv6:2001:888:0:22:194:109:20:204]) by smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net with ESMTPA id 1Sm6enbhsnIXb1Sm6eaKeO; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 09:46:55 +0200 Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-191-159.w92-145.abo.wanadoo.fr ([92.145.170.159]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Mon, 09 Oct 2017 09:46:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 09:46:54 +0200 From: peter van der Stok To: Roll Organization: vanderstok consultancy Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org Message-ID: <76c7ca90006983de7a781bc8abad534c@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfEwxhxkXjJpVhzC3ErQyTgX3ktuYZah95Z2wDbJj5C4sJoQhD91kSBtlwQSU4PQUXEn9fCZHwUX7FV8bamNHXDhSQQiA7g3f/08KWgiRHsgOiivOlpoq JQuSCxYaHDA6+Tp/dmOHX6qe3A/yNvF406PLJ8RShtTMlZK7mP0e5CiG6MWFhyzqfLQ7LMeZZ8nyeA3SR3sYKJ350R8YwQmlbXA= Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Topics and drafts within Roll charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 07:47:00 -0000 Hi Roll, In a discussion with Rahul and Pascal, it transpires that there are still many topics to address that fit within our charter. The proliferation of topics worries us a bit. We have only a limited number of active authors and some topics also seem to be competing. The result of this situation might be that we have an overflowing work agenda. Therefore, we need to find additional people to work on those topics; or reduce the number of topics. It is our suggestion that we discuss these topics, find dedicated authors, and prioritize them after some debate on the M-L. Also we should like to remove the competitive subjects by joining them into one draft. Your comments please. Ines + Peter ------------------------ List of topics ------------------------------------------ 1 Route invalidation as a standalone topics The topic is mentioned in several drafts, but we need to come to one general approach. 2.A draft that allows a ND only device to connect, be reachable and move in a RPL network. 3. Not all implementers are aware of the design issues of storing mode of RPL vs non-storing. Both of the modes have issues with their design. Some issues are getting sorted out by drafts such as dao-projection and no-path DAO optimization. But still considerable design issues need to be handled. To name few: a. handling parent switching optimally in storing MOP. Currently with Storing MOP it would lead to DIO/DAO storm in the sub-path from the child node who switches the parent. This is handled well in NS MOP (Non-storing MOP). b. how to handle node(6ln, 6lr, lbr) reboot scenario? In some cases it is trivial, but in most cases it is not (considering dependence on several state variables such as DTSN across reboots)! Also for practical point of view, need to consider that writing to flash/NV-memory is not a good option in embedded devices and should be avoided as far as possible. c. Problems of current DAO-ACK in storing MOP. There was a discussion on ML long time back, but there is no draft in the space. d. problem of bulging IPv6 headers in NS MOP. Most part of this will be taken care of by SRH compression and dao-projection. 4. Confusion between DAG selection (for joining and jumping) vs. parent selection (for re-parenting within a DODAG). 6TiSCH has isolated the need for a join preference which is different from the Rank used in parent selection. The resulting Rank may be used in the join preference, but not only. The size of the DODAG, the number of children of that parent, etc... may influence. There is basically the need for a new sort of objective function, this time in order to select a DODAG to join. 5. Integration with 6LoWPAN. We need to write that draft that standardizes the procedures suggested in the 6TiSCH architecture and shows a non RPL aware joining a DODAG and moving inside. With the new 6LoWPAN ND and the NP DAO, we now have all the tools to do it. Unless we consider that the reference is the 6TiSCH architecture in which case we complete the design there. 6. Exposing (some of) the structure of the Mesh to the root to enable the DAO projection for transversal routes and in storing mode in general. 7. Using bitmaps for multicast and unicast routing, used in 7a routing tables, or 7b in header for source routing 8. Guidance to implementers who are relatively new to RPL are not aware of many design considerations and there should be a doc which talks about it. Similar work is started in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences-09 ... but it does not list all the issues imo. 9. What to do with expired YANG model drafts 10. What else do you think that we should consider? -- Peter van der Stok vanderstok consultancy mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org www: www.vanderstok.org tel NL: +31(0)492474673 F: +33(0)966015248 From nobody Mon Oct 9 00:59:55 2017 Return-Path: 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 B1BC51347B8; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:59:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.08 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 N6_jgt9u5K5M; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from se-out1.mx-wecloud.net (se-out1.mx-wecloud.net [89.221.255.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 857C6134BA4; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sp-mail-2.sp.se (unknown [194.218.146.197]) by se-out1.mx-wecloud.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D02AD203C83; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:59:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-f177.google.com (10.116.0.226) by sp-mail-2.sp.se (10.100.0.162) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.669.32; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:59:47 +0200 Received: by mail-qt0-f177.google.com with SMTP id v28so32715797qtv.1; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:59:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUIDdJJqnYtD9K92vz4fqRwSz2Jc8qrqAUraJ6r757yMguop8zH kT6XHKb7y1b4wb50qtIM7JGL6BZKqIst8ErPINk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QB45/6GXF6EqvFwAkaxHJNR8SfTISO2FsoJHvcaOm/G7xXrYHxyL+2HPCVqyC31W12EV13a1ZVxKd8quk/fWLU= X-Received: by 10.200.58.229 with SMTP id x92mr7148127qte.161.1507535984807; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:59:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.32.175 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:59:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Duquennoy Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:59:44 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: 6tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114d3680dc5529055b189226" X-Originating-IP: [10.116.0.226] X-ClientProxiedBy: sp-mail-3.sp.se (10.100.0.163) To sp-mail-2.sp.se (10.100.0.162) X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=cdiiljLM c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=L5DDne6A+dD0FbDkt2Fblw==:117 a=L5DDne6A+dD0FbDkt2Fblw==:17 a=sZ8rJzgPlrQA:10 a=02M-m0pO-4AA:10 a=EWPDJS0nAAAA:8 a=-WHh0niThTAeanbewxgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=MULH-nh2sywA:10 a=lB5geNp93_8A:10 a=lojp8qvx5KgJKj6_i5wA:9 a=5aFino1nNMdWwnse:21 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at MailSecurity X-Virus-Status: Clean X-MailSecurity-Status: 0 X-Scanned-By: WeCloud MailSecurity X-MailSecurity-Score: 0 Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Reliable routing with RPL/6TiSCH X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 07:59:53 -0000 --001a114d3680dc5529055b189226 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear all, As promised in the 6TiSCH interim on Sept 22, here comes our detailed report, with experimental evaluation results etc. Five-Nines Reliable Downward Routing in RPL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.02324.pdf Best, Simon --001a114d3680dc5529055b189226 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

As promised in the= 6TiSCH interim on Sept 22, here comes our detailed report, with experiment= al evaluation results etc.

Five-Nines Reliable Dow= nward Routing in RPL:

Bes= t,
Simon

--001a114d3680dc5529055b189226-- From nobody Sat Oct 14 02:24:35 2017 Return-Path: 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 552361320B5; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:24:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Q6Ed--rZSCjJ; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (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 48CD1126B7E; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:24:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9E9Nunx003763; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:23:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.119] (p5DC7FC78.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.252.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3yDfKR6CnmzDMBq; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:23:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 529665835.110935-1549a6feb9f7c8fcb6eb670f5b90f243 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:23:55 +0200 Message-Id: <3DD87467-9262-41B1-A6E4-0ED0B3DB25EE@tzi.org> To: lo <6lo@ietf.org>, 6tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>, lp-wan , lwip@ietf.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF100: DRAFT AGENDA X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 09:24:02 -0000 Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda based on the DRAFT AGENDA for IETF100. Remember that there is still quite some potential for changes. The CBOR/SUIT conflict needs to be fixed. Also, maybe CORE and 6TISCH are going to swap so we have more time between the two CORE meetings. All times are SGT (UTC+0800). (You can get pure UTC times on https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda-utc, for those who want to listen from remote.) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten FRIDAY, November 10, 2017 -- Joint meeting of OCF and T2TRG @ OCF meeting venue SATURDAY/SUNDAY -- Hackathon (including various interops) MONDAY, November 13, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Collyer ART dispatch Dispatch WG - 0930-1100 Joint = with ARTAREA Collyer ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG - = 1100-1200 Olivia INT *** lpwan IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks = WG Sophia OPS anima Autonomic Networking Integrated Model = and Approach WG 1330-1530 Afternoon Session I Olivia ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Padang OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG 1550-1720 Afternoon Session II Bras Basah ART *** cbor Concise Binary Object Representation = Maintenance and Extensions WG Collyer INT homenet Home Networking WG Padang IRTF maprg Measurement and Analysis for Protocols Canning SEC *** suit Software Updates for Internet of Things = WG 1740-1840 Afternoon Session III Padang SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG Canning TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG TUESDAY, November 14, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Collyer SEC *** ace Authentication and Authorization for = Constrained Environments WG Sophia TSV taps Transport Services WG 1330-1530 Afternoon Session I Olivia ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Canning OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Bras Basah SEC tokbind Token Binding WG Padang TSV quic QUIC WG 1550-1750 Afternoon Session II Padang IRTF*** t2trg Thing-to-Thing Olivia RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG Sophia SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG WEDNESDAY, November 15, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Sophia INT dnssd Extensions for Scalable DNS Service = Discovery WG Collyer INT ipwave IP Wireless Access in Vehicular = Environments WG - 0930-1030 Collyer INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG = - 1100-1200 Bras Basah IRTF icnrg Information-Centric Networking Canning TSV quic QUIC WG 1330-1500 Afternoon Session I Bras Basah ART uta Using TLS in Applications WG Collyer SEC *** teep A Protocol for Dynamic Trusted Execution = Environment Enablement BOF Orchard TSV rmcat RTP Media Congestion Avoidance = Techniques WG 1520-1650 Afternoon Session II Collyer INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG Orchard SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG THURSDAY, November 16, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Collyer INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Padang IRTF irtfopen IRTF Open Meeting Sophia RTG detnet Deterministic Networking WG Canning SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG 1330-1530 Afternoon Session I Sophia INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG Collyer IRTF panrg Path Aware Networking Proposed RG Padang SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting 1550-1750 Afternoon Session II Sophia INT *** 6tisch IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE = 802.15.4e WG Canning RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting 1810-1910 Afternoon Session III Orchard SEC curdle CURves, Deprecating and a Little more = Encryption WG Padang TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting FRIDAY, November 17, 2017 0930-1130 Morning Session I Canning ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG Orchard RTG babel Babel routing protocol WG Collyer TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1150-1320 Afternoon Session I Olivia SEC acme Automated Certificate Management = Environment WG From nobody Sat Oct 14 02:55:46 2017 Return-Path: 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 7BC46126B7E; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:55:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 iRBJtnWUJSiv; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (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 9CBDC132143; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:55:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::b]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9E9td4Z028308; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:55:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.119] (p5DC7FC78.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.252.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3yDg2306v8zDMC6; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:55:38 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <3DD87467-9262-41B1-A6E4-0ED0B3DB25EE@tzi.org> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:55:38 +0200 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 529667738.274719-e354e89f28621fe005a50e34cc57f897 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3DD87467-9262-41B1-A6E4-0ED0B3DB25EE@tzi.org> To: lo <6lo@ietf.org>, 6tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>, lp-wan , lwip@ietf.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] FIXED: Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF100: DRAFT AGENDA X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 09:55:45 -0000 (Sorry for the resend; the previous version missed out on all meetings in the room "VIP A", and I didn't see those conflicts either.) Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda based on the DRAFT AGENDA for IETF100. Remember that there is still quite some potential for changes. The CBOR/SUIT conflict needs to be fixed. Also, maybe CORE and 6TISCH are going to swap so we have more time between the two CORE meetings. ROLL vs. TEEP is a bit unfortunate, as is DINRG vs. LPWAN vs. DISPATCH. All times are SGT (UTC+0800). (You can get pure UTC times on https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda-utc, for those who want to listen from remote.) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten MONDAY, November 13, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Collyer ART dispatch Dispatch WG - 0930-1100 Joint = with ARTAREA Collyer ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG - = 1100-1200 Olivia INT *** lpwan IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks = WG VIP A IRTF*** dinrg Decentralized Internet Infrastructure = Proposed RG Sophia OPS anima Autonomic Networking Integrated Model = and Approach WG 1330-1530 Afternoon Session I Olivia ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Padang OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG 1550-1720 Afternoon Session II Bras Basah ART *** cbor Concise Binary Object Representation = Maintenance and Extensions WG Collyer INT homenet Home Networking WG Padang IRTF maprg Measurement and Analysis for Protocols Canning SEC *** suit Software Updates for Internet of Things = WG 1740-1840 Afternoon Session III Padang SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG Canning TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG TUESDAY, November 14, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Collyer SEC *** ace Authentication and Authorization for = Constrained Environments WG Sophia TSV taps Transport Services WG 1330-1530 Afternoon Session I Olivia ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Canning OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Bras Basah SEC tokbind Token Binding WG Padang TSV quic QUIC WG 1550-1750 Afternoon Session II Padang IRTF*** t2trg Thing-to-Thing Olivia RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG Sophia SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG WEDNESDAY, November 15, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Sophia INT dnssd Extensions for Scalable DNS Service = Discovery WG Collyer INT ipwave IP Wireless Access in Vehicular = Environments WG - 0930-1030 Collyer INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG = - 1100-1200 Bras Basah IRTF icnrg Information-Centric Networking Canning TSV quic QUIC WG 1330-1500 Afternoon Session I Bras Basah ART uta Using TLS in Applications WG VIP A RTG *** roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks WG Collyer SEC *** teep A Protocol for Dynamic Trusted Execution = Environment Enablement BOF Orchard TSV rmcat RTP Media Congestion Avoidance = Techniques WG 1520-1650 Afternoon Session II Collyer INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG VIP A IRTF cfrg Crypto Forum Orchard SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG THURSDAY, November 16, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Collyer INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Padang IRTF irtfopen IRTF Open Meeting Sophia RTG detnet Deterministic Networking WG Canning SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG 1330-1530 Afternoon Session I Sophia INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG Collyer IRTF panrg Path Aware Networking Proposed RG Padang SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting 1550-1750 Afternoon Session II VIP A ART ice Interactive Connectivity Establishment = WG - 1550-1650 Sophia INT *** 6tisch IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE = 802.15.4e WG Canning RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting 1810-1910 Afternoon Session III Orchard SEC curdle CURves, Deprecating and a Little more = Encryption WG Padang TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting FRIDAY, November 17, 2017 0930-1130 Morning Session I Canning ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG Orchard RTG babel Babel routing protocol WG Collyer TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1150-1320 Afternoon Session I Olivia SEC acme Automated Certificate Management = Environment WG From nobody Mon Oct 16 02:38:11 2017 Return-Path: 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 0EE32132944 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 02:38:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailfence.com 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 BSIVTfaXJ3YH for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 02:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com (mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com [212.3.242.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 483C61344BA for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 02:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth2.co-bxl (smtpauth2.co-bxl [10.2.0.24]) by mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B1A556 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:37:46 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mailfence.com; s=20160819-nLV10XS2; t=1508146666; bh=V22RiJ9SaF4rORw2LTKroCpm1s6ZXI7V0N1xN1y5swc=; h=From:Date:Subject:To:From; b=LdXe0Lsne0vYv7rmDP5czJ0TFzlOJsVAwBEro99QfEWgSuetBiy/HfswtVdBuKgOq oDUHdrDwdpDK8/szPHG2HS0DKvXqtGwF4RKypsOtApzZsZoEbGVRwWqqlCeZn1x3/h e4vrxl9Fv5lQZNDSseHovhMl70PVCgv3IXcnk5DJ6MwR629fLRj084DHbbt2gjOMvV Nw+fvwZTpv4VlNA6E54ZSpwULwiQjgmjSt/9ED8P7/2NRcatdSXOTGwJEXKf1CHmOc Bs0/DKHDaAPSGnLYnugbCk6yYOyjLbeJ2KgSdsqF2wkrIg0OozAxP2j+TTv9nYKcCZ 6WKeRc2KEeKUA== Received: from mail-qk0-f179.google.com ([209.85.220.179]) by smtp.mailfence.com (envelope-from ) with ESMTPA for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:37:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x82so12039355qkb.12 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 02:37:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWDNZEDXPRSbf059VAtn6OZMLxh0ibey8FdM7YEFh/mkWe0tUU4 b8/Bg3Oaicr3ETpuZ6/liKgHTbbmMLhgtAaqAhs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RNzDHLJrqlz8zTNCTA4Zkg7IaFf8TBwPwAttrqRfqMKdueVlFKtpTFzGCtMn5OpBlfpfurVt8gKVXTYEIjw64= X-Received: by 10.55.37.67 with SMTP id x64mr12002675qkg.259.1508146662811; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 02:37:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.130.6 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 02:37:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:37:44 +0200 (CEST) X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: roll@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140446e1b2e95055ba6c211" X-ContactOffice-Account: com:113819248 Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] DAG Metric Container option in RPL control messages X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:38:10 -0000 --001a1140446e1b2e95055ba6c211 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello, while looking into how to use the DAG Metric Container option, I noticed an inconsistency regarding which RPL control messages it may appear in. More specifically, in Section "6.4.3. DAO Options" it does not appear in the supported options list: 6.4.3. DAO Options The DAO message MAY carry valid options. This specification allows for the DAO message to carry the following options: 0x00 Pad1 0x01 PadN 0x05 RPL Target 0x06 Transit Information 0x09 RPL Target Descriptor but in Section "6.7.4. DAG Metric Container" it is stated that a DAO can contain the option: 6.7.4. DAG Metric Container The DAG Metric Container option MAY be present in DIO or DAO messages, and its format is as follows: ... Furthermore, RFC6551, which specifies the metrics, has no reference to DAOs while it does have a few DIO references. Based on these hints, it looks to me like the DAO message is not supposed to have the ability to carry the DAG Metric Container option, so the text in the Section "6.7.4. DAG Metric Container" might need to be changed to reflect this. I can report this to the errata database, but I thought that asking here first would be a better start. Best, Aris --001a1140446e1b2e95055ba6c211 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

while looking into how to use the DAG Metric= Container option, I noticed an inconsistency regarding which RPL control m= essages it may appear in. More specifically, in Section "6.4.3.=C2=A0 = DAO Options" it does not appear in the supported options list:

= 6.4.3.=C2=A0 DAO Options

=C2=A0=C2=A0 The DAO message MAY carry vali= d options.

=C2=A0=C2=A0 This specification allows for the DAO messag= e to carry the following
=C2=A0=C2=A0 options:

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 0x00 Pad1
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 0x01 PadN
=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 0x05 RPL Target
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 0x06 Transit Information
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 0x09 RPL Tar= get Descriptor



but in Section "6.7.4.=C2=A0 DAG Metric = Container" it is stated that a DAO can contain the option:

6.7.= 4.=C2=A0 DAG Metric Container

=C2=A0=C2=A0 The DAG Metric Container = option MAY be present in DIO or DAO
=C2=A0=C2=A0 messages, and its forma= t is as follows:
=C2=A0=C2=A0 ...


Furthermore, RFC6551, which= specifies the metrics, has no reference to DAOs while it does have a few D= IO references.

Based on these hints, it looks to me like the DAO mes= sage is not supposed to have the ability to carry the DAG Metric Container = option, so the text in the Section "6.7.4.=C2=A0 DAG Metric Container&= quot; might need to be changed to reflect this.

I can report this to= the errata database, but I thought that asking here first would be a bette= r start.

Best,
Aris

--001a1140446e1b2e95055ba6c211-- From nobody Mon Oct 16 03:08:40 2017 Return-Path: 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 066CB132697 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 GMzoEqzhZygW for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg0-x22d.google.com (mail-pg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C4BA1321A2 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id k7so6415366pga.3 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:08:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:subject:message-id :references:in-reply-to:to; bh=xCWBEKCOlRSrkFmzmVYrnFjeyTFBTOTDwgGCq+nEdkA=; b=MOq3xIK5tGpjoij1Z46qWP4J1XnlUFdq/hVZvtOhziWw0wkpRvdxOsdkaqa5H1zGac sCzy6wqy0atrTfnoOgYBlrStADBRCxD1Z0UlvXwgZDPGvN7IO2IaNb2o2ReFaRikUqZc Uv6z442D0kGCaeezIi4BdHMS7HDcxvOy1DmztcfDzWJZYoyLBq21XIu23eFQfrG0drOU DHgk4Z9DcTlNp9IDHF8RYraDhqhQfYQO9meL9utbgUjNo51UgUCt55H4JaW/bljaitsS Ub2Y6/FZXNQfcJCiqs4iI0xCtdTJ4IpWsM1NVgE+sGv7el4OTFWOtBQwIX/m3YaudtbE u84A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date :subject:message-id:references:in-reply-to:to; bh=xCWBEKCOlRSrkFmzmVYrnFjeyTFBTOTDwgGCq+nEdkA=; b=ctk48PG7BE3zDZKCM3GLify1xnZuv5PLVFRSGrqB1F6sF/YAmwh+I10EE/tC/rSw/i XsZ4SsmK1zqrKsfxWSCSCXCXZu8SwEWPb4nFNy2ADPWCbNMRaisGNNeYNqBf9JzswKt/ 6BNeoBwIV6bOwgD3fhU7wXy/bfDzUOh4F/bEUJawoKcc/ZqvomNJPfXOPJzNFjTGTQR8 kBwQIcwqH9znkqCnQquzPoL4fqBvNNGjyXD6Xi0JzWC6uSxoCkJGtPdDa0NOjbOFVW8I 5xOHxvqhVdsHNc3D+8WkITy66DxavPaukeOuzLVhuANZcL2V1M/QmOK6tyM4mJUAQq/q 0VMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXdFAm8m1aUt4kU+ZKt1pf5Jc69HM2JEzho/w0K22e6IhPsq8JQ t+NYquNMwKM/JfZ34AVZvAteuyNn X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCX3Dh298ct02Ik2OgqS9TVC8v7Yk4cW/cUi42XapEXK+ywv2EGt2BVU9qRhy03dYe7kxCPlQ== X-Received: by 10.98.192.6 with SMTP id x6mr8192237pff.170.1508148517229; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.175.168] ([125.17.165.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d190sm10847224pgc.53.2017.10.16.03.08.35 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:08:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Rahul Jadhav Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:38:33 +0530 Message-Id: References: In-Reply-To: To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15A402) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] DAG Metric Container option in RPL control messages X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:08:40 -0000 +1 I don't see a reason for DAO to contain DAG metric container. Regards,=20 Rahul > On 16-Oct-2017, at 3:07 PM, Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis wr= ote: >=20 > Hello, >=20 > while looking into how to use the DAG Metric Container option, I noticed a= n inconsistency regarding which RPL control messages it may appear in. More s= pecifically, in Section "6.4.3. DAO Options" it does not appear in the supp= orted options list: >=20 > 6.4.3. DAO Options >=20 > The DAO message MAY carry valid options. >=20 > This specification allows for the DAO message to carry the following > options: >=20 > 0x00 Pad1 > 0x01 PadN > 0x05 RPL Target > 0x06 Transit Information > 0x09 RPL Target Descriptor >=20 >=20 >=20 > but in Section "6.7.4. DAG Metric Container" it is stated that a DAO can c= ontain the option: >=20 > 6.7.4. DAG Metric Container >=20 > The DAG Metric Container option MAY be present in DIO or DAO > messages, and its format is as follows: > ... >=20 >=20 > Furthermore, RFC6551, which specifies the metrics, has no reference to DAO= s while it does have a few DIO references. >=20 > Based on these hints, it looks to me like the DAO message is not supposed t= o have the ability to carry the DAG Metric Container option, so the text in t= he Section "6.7.4. DAG Metric Container" might need to be changed to reflec= t this. >=20 > I can report this to the errata database, but I thought that asking here f= irst would be a better start. >=20 > Best, > Aris >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From nobody Mon Oct 16 05:03:44 2017 Return-Path: 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 4D5841344C9 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:03:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com 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 7ZGIW3f0I1mG for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66D681344CE for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:03:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2226; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1508155409; x=1509365009; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=n/3tQ7+Z9aZOZ2XuSqu18DcUoFX9wNtSSAjeyhy08NM=; b=hlsERMkF33WqoD4WX1vI/88FJnPRmjyW56xTbefKW5z0xJTY/J5L4bMG XIkvb+Tzspeple3wte7LJUeNKU2aqGADWqY5h4EbBmGa36lLjWYxhHOzl aGoryVD20crNjP/Yzgjb7dbzmbKnmxXQGOa7tHYB+rDMXSCxig6yDEStI c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CzAQDknuRZ/5JdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg19kbicHnUOBdpYvghQKGAuFGAKEVkEWAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFHQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQE4NBAHBAIBCBEEAQEBHgkHJwsUCQgCBBMIig0IEKxVizEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARkFgy2CB4FRhAZZNYRphhAFoUgClGCTH5VCAhEZAYE4ASY?= =?us-ascii?q?MJVx9ehVJgmSEX3aJRIERAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,386,1503360000"; d="scan'208";a="306488526" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Oct 2017 12:03:28 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9GC3Sh4004983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:03:28 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:03:27 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:03:27 -0500 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] DAG Metric Container option in RPL control messages Thread-Index: AQHTRmKFCOO7FIa5nk69JmsorUkmxKLmlH6A///Lp+A= Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:03:17 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:02:52 +0000 Message-ID: <886e64d507b14a84a72b6599765f815f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.15] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] DAG Metric Container option in RPL control messages X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:03:43 -0000 I agree that in the original series, the metrics container was not expected= in DAO messages. -----Original Message----- From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rahul Jadhav Sent: lundi 16 octobre 2017 12:09 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Subject: Re: [Roll] DAG Metric Container option in RPL control messages +1 I don't see a reason for DAO to contain DAG metric container. Regards,=20 Rahul > On 16-Oct-2017, at 3:07 PM, Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis w= rote: >=20 > Hello, >=20 > while looking into how to use the DAG Metric Container option, I noticed = an inconsistency regarding which RPL control messages it may appear in. Mor= e specifically, in Section "6.4.3. DAO Options" it does not appear in the = supported options list: >=20 > 6.4.3. DAO Options >=20 > The DAO message MAY carry valid options. >=20 > This specification allows for the DAO message to carry the following > options: >=20 > 0x00 Pad1 > 0x01 PadN > 0x05 RPL Target > 0x06 Transit Information > 0x09 RPL Target Descriptor >=20 >=20 >=20 > but in Section "6.7.4. DAG Metric Container" it is stated that a DAO can= contain the option: >=20 > 6.7.4. DAG Metric Container >=20 > The DAG Metric Container option MAY be present in DIO or DAO > messages, and its format is as follows: > ... >=20 >=20 > Furthermore, RFC6551, which specifies the metrics, has no reference to DA= Os while it does have a few DIO references. >=20 > Based on these hints, it looks to me like the DAO message is not supposed= to have the ability to carry the DAG Metric Container option, so the text = in the Section "6.7.4. DAG Metric Container" might need to be changed to r= eflect this. >=20 > I can report this to the errata database, but I thought that asking here = first would be a better start. >=20 > Best, > Aris >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 From nobody Mon Oct 16 05:55:49 2017 Return-Path: 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 94D9E1321BB for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:55:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 9xIA2Ws4xxcm for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua0-x233.google.com (mail-ua0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1171413214D for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua0-x233.google.com with SMTP id b11so9606165uae.12 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:55:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=NQgROkB9GSwEiRNONWXA/14DB6gqe49FulXu+uLNXUQ=; b=HGhxcWrtxVix225SOLjA17zPwN+UWkZxeczXWZJTpCgpTsoX7gJtu4p9B2ik8gPiUD zJA0Ao2GExx9cW+GjivU0u1lMcrs0LBuWU+u2JsNq/Pkty/W3WFjoOiDtZ90OOGA38UH PsiYpteF2/+4wxu06lrQvsHFsPR0pgZQYRp4KnCeug5T29Z/cVmUT4BiMcsiv93VCw2d eax2FMdY8UaQKWvJgac/9yeilvrQjfKjY1tzx/ooVHz/9fRE8pqH9VASCicUnfe42Fmg yQ/+zkw5mg/wJLRn5CtaQJzv8HOcfAaKNO64A6VTQu4yMvRDjY2qT43mE131IZCLqhn7 rDgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=NQgROkB9GSwEiRNONWXA/14DB6gqe49FulXu+uLNXUQ=; b=lBy0yPNZs2oMsQIhr8rCGDMlpAP7Mdk9xp7soRNccZ7R3GK3owCo0CaUKrOWNR/Rba Go6WzdVVFue2Rc1/si1d6dZQu0D/OUkfzt0uXpxWPikA11B1/dYllY1aYNjuniSpu3GV pWm0yBU8/8JR8Si8LnmokwnuxU1I+H3lC6Tmm9hso+tgoyZh4fAUrpP8I3zcgD7kuVTR f3ykjVZSPFCUAlkUBYaxCp+mMk4PQoNajky9ktg6GQEVZwz88wN8UZkB6V/86Y4WnZ1E hmAJdkhl1SBKA+T0rKDZl5QW9KazSDdqTbF/56atfCmNj2T9Z1gP3ZYUVI7mXkl7SzSL h9sA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaW+Gu4jbVgcY5Q8oDKLnYcTtct6gVCTZ6F747hLMUWzhb11IliB nVugy6Uc53673POzCtc9AcAFVb/Vjf3ZJSLoJw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDrgXHp78P3ku367G35hL4YxKMcM07B18saFuSwfQMBsCC4wLWROS+GhyVFuoXoYyyg+FvXpugy5k4sjqhQlhc= X-Received: by 10.176.19.34 with SMTP id g31mr7572106uae.104.1508158545661; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:55:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.102.131 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:55:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <886e64d507b14a84a72b6599765f815f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> References: <886e64d507b14a84a72b6599765f815f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> From: Mamoun Qasem Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:55:45 +0100 Message-ID: To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11496eca6115d1055ba986ba" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] DAG Metric Container option in RPL control messages X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:55:48 -0000 --001a11496eca6115d1055ba986ba Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +1, Agree with Rahul. Best Mamoun On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > I agree that in the original series, the metrics container was not > expected in DAO messages. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rahul Jadhav > Sent: lundi 16 octobre 2017 12:09 > To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks > Subject: Re: [Roll] DAG Metric Container option in RPL control messages > > +1 > I don't see a reason for DAO to contain DAG metric container. > > Regards, > Rahul > > > On 16-Oct-2017, at 3:07 PM, Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > while looking into how to use the DAG Metric Container option, I noticed > an inconsistency regarding which RPL control messages it may appear in. > More specifically, in Section "6.4.3. DAO Options" it does not appear in > the supported options list: > > > > 6.4.3. DAO Options > > > > The DAO message MAY carry valid options. > > > > This specification allows for the DAO message to carry the following > > options: > > > > 0x00 Pad1 > > 0x01 PadN > > 0x05 RPL Target > > 0x06 Transit Information > > 0x09 RPL Target Descriptor > > > > > > > > but in Section "6.7.4. DAG Metric Container" it is stated that a DAO > can contain the option: > > > > 6.7.4. DAG Metric Container > > > > The DAG Metric Container option MAY be present in DIO or DAO > > messages, and its format is as follows: > > ... > > > > > > Furthermore, RFC6551, which specifies the metrics, has no reference to > DAOs while it does have a few DIO references. > > > > Based on these hints, it looks to me like the DAO message is not > supposed to have the ability to carry the DAG Metric Container option, so > the text in the Section "6.7.4. DAG Metric Container" might need to be > changed to reflect this. > > > > I can report this to the errata database, but I thought that asking here > first would be a better start. > > > > Best, > > Aris > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > --001a11496eca6115d1055ba986ba Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1,
Agree with Rahul.
Best=C2=A0
M= amoun

= On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisc= o.com> wrote:
I agree that = in the original series, the metrics container was not expected in DAO messa= ges.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ie= tf.org] On Behalf Of Rahul Jadhav
Sent: lundi 16 octobre 2017 12:09
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] DAG Metric Container option in RPL control messages

+1
I don't see a reason for DAO to contain DAG metric container.

Regards,
Rahul

> On 16-Oct-2017, at 3:07 PM, Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <aris@ariskou.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> while looking into how to use the DAG Metric Container option, I notic= ed an inconsistency regarding which RPL control messages it may appear in. = More specifically, in Section "6.4.3.=C2=A0 DAO Options" it does = not appear in the supported options list:
>
> 6.4.3.=C2=A0 DAO Options
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The DAO message MAY carry valid options.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 This specification allows for the DAO message to carry th= e following
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 options:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00x00 Pad1
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00x01 PadN
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00x05 RPL Target
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00x06 Transit Information
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00x09 RPL Target Descriptor
>
>
>
> but in Section "6.7.4.=C2=A0 DAG Metric Container" it is sta= ted that a DAO can contain the option:
>
> 6.7.4.=C2=A0 DAG Metric Container
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The DAG Metric Container option MAY be present in DIO or = DAO
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 messages, and its format is as follows:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ...
>
>
> Furthermore, RFC6551, which specifies the metrics, has no reference to= DAOs while it does have a few DIO references.
>
> Based on these hints, it looks to me like the DAO message is not suppo= sed to have the ability to carry the DAG Metric Container option, so the te= xt in the Section "6.7.4.=C2=A0 DAG Metric Container" might need = to be changed to reflect this.
>
> I can report this to the errata database, but I thought that asking he= re first would be a better start.
>
> Best,
> Aris
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

--001a11496eca6115d1055ba986ba-- From nobody Mon Oct 16 07:20:47 2017 Return-Path: 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 F03F21344DB for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:20:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailfence.com 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 ZpMDa7uLRe-L for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:20:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com (mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com [212.3.242.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 274161344B7 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth1.co-bxl (smtpauth1.co-bxl [10.2.0.15]) by mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0713D858 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:20:42 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mailfence.com; s=20160819-nLV10XS2; t=1508163642; bh=N1ue/FFhA+C/DVJO6cXGFWBEUWCxzQR77hqj57PPn00=; h=In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Subject:To:From; b=wWy+w2xh0kTWuoaau/RA0MEnh8nQ1z/Aem/oDOij0+iY6k8D+eZ4Iih9JojahOtGU hRMzT/vYU+N83DdYiETXHo3pGfI/b85YsJRkAYO6x/TMg3J0pHSSqLMMNehaDf+4IP ei1X3pUZXpO5R4PoEgwlLRDSW7Iw1arcsX7jOyCMzkg0aJY4yhLJtxHdT0YACWSPyz SRstlw+BMLByPdZLctQua9zcSZ1mRFpkEJ9V5BBVe9o4dJ9Um8S6hBW+i/adztwYfD dKQrjlOnfQiT1lye5uJjL/gHzjsgufCbjRjphKRWp9Q7mkIpZzDk1+IA3hXlDQv9Kk uF1aG6ohKuEwQ== Received: from mail-qt0-f171.google.com ([209.85.216.171]) by smtp.mailfence.com (envelope-from ) with ESMTPA for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:20:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qt0-f171.google.com with SMTP id k31so31927351qta.6 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:20:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXxWjlOhZjTjmEfHZSLq/o8lMCrFkLLJiExDyGLIYv1BoPonud4 p7r1A9A0InP83rr/VmeE65YaPAO8a9GmWekoG6E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TzXA6H6tIC11MlqTXMkxED9lv9eY9nFsk0Y0lIPBFRKJlAfqdYJTntu/8N11eIoEMtWU67CFjcbikoWS+Jiy8= X-Received: by 10.200.41.164 with SMTP id 33mr12529721qts.318.1508163638600; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:20:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.130.6 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:20:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:20:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: roll@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11404a64f12dd5055baab5e2" X-ContactOffice-Account: com:113819248 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] DAG Metric Container option in RPL control messages X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:20:46 -0000 --001a11404a64f12dd5055baab5e2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi again, I have also just checked the latest source code for Contiki (DAG Metric Container option only generated/checked for in DIO messages), OpenWSN (no mention of DAG Metric Container option, as far as I can tell) and RIOT OS (only defines the type code, no option handling present, as far as I can tell). So changing the documentation should not have any real world impact. Best, Aris On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis wrote: > Hello, > > while looking into how to use the DAG Metric Container option, I noticed > an inconsistency regarding which RPL control messages it may appear in. > More specifically, in Section "6.4.3. DAO Options" it does not appear in > the supported options list: > > 6.4.3. DAO Options > > The DAO message MAY carry valid options. > > This specification allows for the DAO message to carry the following > options: > > 0x00 Pad1 > 0x01 PadN > 0x05 RPL Target > 0x06 Transit Information > 0x09 RPL Target Descriptor > > > > but in Section "6.7.4. DAG Metric Container" it is stated that a DAO can > contain the option: > > 6.7.4. DAG Metric Container > > The DAG Metric Container option MAY be present in DIO or DAO > messages, and its format is as follows: > ... > > > Furthermore, RFC6551, which specifies the metrics, has no reference to > DAOs while it does have a few DIO references. > > Based on these hints, it looks to me like the DAO message is not supposed > to have the ability to carry the DAG Metric Container option, so the text > in the Section "6.7.4. DAG Metric Container" might need to be changed to > reflect this. > > I can report this to the errata database, but I thought that asking here > first would be a better start. > > Best, > Aris > > --001a11404a64f12dd5055baab5e2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi again,

I have also jus= t checked the latest source code for Contiki (DAG Metric Container option o= nly generated/checked for in DIO messages), OpenWSN (no mention of DAG Metr= ic Container option, as far as I can tell) and RIOT OS (only defines the ty= pe code, no option handling present, as far as I can tell).
So cha= nging the documentation should not have any real world impact.

Best,
Aris

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <ar= is@ariskou.com> wrote:
Hello,

while looking into how to use the DAG Metric Con= tainer option, I noticed an inconsistency regarding which RPL control messa= ges it may appear in. More specifically, in Section "6.4.3.=C2=A0 DAO = Options" it does not appear in the supported options list:

6.4.= 3.=C2=A0 DAO Options

=C2=A0=C2=A0 The DAO message MAY carry valid op= tions.

=C2=A0=C2=A0 This specification allows for the DAO message to= carry the following
=C2=A0=C2=A0 options:

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0 0x00 Pad1
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 0x01 PadN
=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 0x05 RPL Target
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 = 0x06 Transit Information
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 0x09 RPL Target = Descriptor



but in Section "6.7.4.=C2=A0 DAG Metric Cont= ainer" it is stated that a DAO can contain the option:

6.7.4.= =C2=A0 DAG Metric Container

=C2=A0=C2=A0 The DAG Metric Container op= tion MAY be present in DIO or DAO
=C2=A0=C2=A0 messages, and its format = is as follows:
=C2=A0=C2=A0 ...


Furthermore, RFC6551, which s= pecifies the metrics, has no reference to DAOs while it does have a few DIO= references.

Based on these hints, it looks to me like the DAO messa= ge is not supposed to have the ability to carry the DAG Metric Container op= tion, so the text in the Section "6.7.4.=C2=A0 DAG Metric Container&qu= ot; might need to be changed to reflect this.

I can report this to t= he errata database, but I thought that asking here first would be a better = start.

Best,
Aris


--001a11404a64f12dd5055baab5e2-- From nobody Wed Oct 18 02:47:43 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietf.org Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3204132949; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:47:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: roll@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150832005676.22503.10936847903902323281@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:47:36 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:47:37 -0000 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 : No-Path DAO modifications Authors : Rahul Arvind Jadhav Rabi Narayan Sahoo Zhen Cao Filename : draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2017-10-18 Abstract: This document describes the problems associated with the use of No- Path DAO messaging in RPL and a signaling changes to improve route invalidation efficiency. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Oct 18 09:50:37 2017 Return-Path: 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 48DFB1329B5 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:50:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 FyLV5mXBN1bS for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B964D1321CB for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l68so11314957wmd.5 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:50:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yM0A3GKD8SoBMHrBsNcP5YKYRmyWzqr09se/Y9bSRLo=; b=tdkNvhTh+sWqmKwHbr0DTxuaRC9/87B624vffuTU8a1w1rbiEMC+rteA0kwWGYf7ok M3m0QH8Cn9q1fmDkG83kIGjImTKHic2UMplydgcf4tIhh9m6esSDTlwScIZ3QBDOLcXV 0qHtcD5jvP3ARXaoKMUBsSMgytCVNq8kl8qkMXllX6+ZExrcB1fEelhz+GfvgS9CIQq9 RvNaHCPRBLEQBtWZhQ6nyUbPukKo+3nVWeTn74Qbf/BZCYIt0YEDTDsOE8weHDyQXhHn +ICiGnwMc/+ouLIyACw6+liKbiy+pgqi8P5jO0mN1YDTfiaDc9RGF/y1XVYJh9e6CbQ6 dWMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=yM0A3GKD8SoBMHrBsNcP5YKYRmyWzqr09se/Y9bSRLo=; b=oj9Ar7PQVGbr/k5hdI3BDRnIhNzoqBFN6kHqpSO71YrenDqqjdpefyiJiWtaFB6Mpi 6xxjBnxkI5KzPZrAk9/FANFVeh3vXu/Dh5wZbyeO2aH+DPl1nrhwj67Eg/GcLS44ddap gappM6wt+tZbyYhwkNeGtZyBDbAQwbrRk0AGQMkQsuYTHWwjnkcIPabXsOJH00/Ugp/b h6VUjMDleKWECM61udHp4IyMUS72uh8YkOBiPxmc0zJK0ltcqmwZuswHcGZZBax4nLtJ JzmG5RE6lR70zUo0Nhuai7iX2DKn8GmhVfYrIHMBo4qaaIq46V9n0LSdaa8UBU5epJKZ +biA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaV55qJsB0ANsA4zH1oll1c8QYs//7zZXRfFBKK1Clrvgpeyg3Lf 8U4cQopkVS6UKdy9r5Sz6eNtAa2+d+f+kn7ziix9Gw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Qn8E8wezj9LUD9JZW+BbtAM9fSI7fhI6t5ISmgGY1VtIDphyp2HRaI2gxV48ufubAe9OaJnhWeIB1maoiEagM= X-Received: by 10.80.202.203 with SMTP id f11mr14016789edi.54.1508345431033; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:50:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.142.68 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:50:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <150832005676.22503.10936847903902323281@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <150832005676.22503.10936847903902323281@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Rahul Jadhav Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:20:30 +0530 Message-ID: To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4030438b1b89d8e84055bd509cd" Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Oct 2017 16:50:35 -0000 --f4030438b1b89d8e84055bd509cd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello All, This is regarding use of new RPL control message type for signaling pro-active route invalidation. During IETF99, it was suggested to NOT use existing NPDAO for such pro-active cleanup, and instead use a new RPL control message code. The reasoning was: a. Using a new message code would mean that the pro-active route cleanup can be implemented incrementally, without any impact on existing implementations. b. We anyways have a lot of unused RPL control message codes. Thus instead of changing existing bits in the DAO message, we are adding a new RPL message code (DCO =E2=80=93 Destination Cleanup Object =E2=80=A6. I= f anyone has a better term pls suggest), which should be optional to implement. Thanks, Rahul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: 18 October 2017 at 15:17 Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01.txt To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org 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 : No-Path DAO modifications Authors : Rahul Arvind Jadhav Rabi Narayan Sahoo Zhen Cao Filename : draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2017-10-18 Abstract: This document describes the problems associated with the use of No- Path DAO messaging in RPL and a signaling changes to improve route invalidation efficiency. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll --f4030438b1b89d8e84055bd509cd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello All,

This is regarding us= e of new RPL control message type for signaling pro-active route invalidati= on.

=

During IETF99, it was= suggested to NOT use existing NPDAO for such pro-active cleanup, and inste= ad use a new RPL control message code.

The reasoning was:

a.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Using a new message code would mean that the pro-active route clean= up can be implemented incrementally, without any impact on existing impleme= ntations.

b.=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0We anyways have a lot of unused RPL c= ontrol message codes.

Thus instead of changing existing bits in the DAO message, we= are adding a new RPL message code (DCO =E2=80=93 Destination Cleanup Objec= t =E2=80=A6. If anyone has a better term pls suggest), which should be opti= onal to implement.

=C2=A0=C2=A0

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"font-size:12.8px">

Thanks,

Rahul


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Dat= e: 18 October 2017 at 15:17
Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-= efficient-npdao-01.txt
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Cc: roll@ietf.org



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

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= No-Path DAO modifications
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authors=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Rahu= l Arvind Jadhav
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Rabi Narayan Sahoo
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Zhen Cao
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Filename=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : draft-iet= f-roll-efficient-npdao-01.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= 14
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 := 2017-10-18

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This document describes the problems associated with the use o= f No-
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Path DAO messaging in RPL and a signaling changes to improve r= oute
=C2=A0 =C2=A0invalidation efficiency.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/d= oc/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft= -ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org= /doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?u= rl2=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

--f4030438b1b89d8e84055bd509cd-- From nobody Fri Oct 20 17:28:19 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietf.org Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D0D134505; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:24:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Secretariat\"" To: , Cc: roll@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150854546223.20809.18171211536869069393.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:24:22 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] roll - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 100 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 00:24:22 -0000 Dear Ines Robles, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. roll Session 1 (1:30:00) Wednesday, Afternoon Session I 1330-1500 Room Name: VIP A size: 100 --------------------------------------------- Request Information: --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Area Name: Routing Area Session Requester: Ines Robles Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 50 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: 6man anima manet 6lo 6tisch core Second Priority: lpwan rtgarea t2trg lwig Third Priority: ace ipwave pce rtgwg intarea People who must be present: Michael Richardson Peter Van der Stok Alvaro Retana Ines Robles Resources Requested: Special Requests: Meetecho Support --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Sat Oct 21 00:25:39 2017 Return-Path: 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 66324132D79; Sat, 21 Oct 2017 00:25:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 t3zmcqPiDQ8g; Sat, 21 Oct 2017 00:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (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 BA9E21329B5; Sat, 21 Oct 2017 00:25:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::b]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9L7PVAP002694; Sat, 21 Oct 2017 09:25:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.44.182] (vpn27.hotsplots.net [185.46.137.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3yJvMX6JQWzDWYX; Sat, 21 Oct 2017 09:25:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 530263514.869388-9ce69b8460a0bd20a5491a916d903f69 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 09:25:14 +0200 Message-Id: <073DD8D1-4E5E-4843-BB92-7DBB91557086@tzi.org> To: lo <6lo@ietf.org>, 6tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>, lp-wan , lwip@ietf.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF100: FINAL AGENDA X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 07:25:37 -0000 Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda based on the "FINAL" AGENDA for IETF100. Remember that "FINAL" means this will be the basis for printed agenda sheets, there is still some potential for changes after that. The CBOR/SUIT conflict has been fixed, but now there is overlap between 6TISCH and SUIT. ROLL vs. TEEP is a bit unfortunate, as is DINRG vs. LPWAN vs. DISPATCH. All times are SGT (UTC+0800). (You can get pure UTC times on https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda-utc, for those who want to listen from remote.) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten FRIDAY, November 10, 2017 -- Joint meeting of OCF and T2TRG @ OCF meeting venue SATURDAY/SUNDAY -- Hackathon (including various interops) MONDAY, November 13, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Collyer ART dispatch Dispatch WG - 0930-1100 Joint = with ARTAREA Collyer ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG - = 1100-1200 Olivia INT *** lpwan IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks = WG VIP A IRTF*** dinrg Decentralized Internet Infrastructure = Proposed RG Sophia OPS anima Autonomic Networking Integrated Model = and Approach WG 1330-1530 Afternoon Session I Sophia ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Padang OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG 1550-1720 Afternoon Session II Bras Basah INT *** 6tisch IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE = 802.15.4e WG Collyer INT homenet Home Networking WG Padang IRTF maprg Measurement and Analysis for Protocols Canning SEC *** suit Software Updates for Internet of Things = BOF 1740-1840 Afternoon Session III Sophia INT ipwave IP Wireless Access in Vehicular = Environments WG - 0930-1030 Padang SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG Canning TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG TUESDAY, November 14, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Collyer SEC *** ace Authentication and Authorization for = Constrained Environments WG Olivia TSV taps Transport Services WG 1330-1530 Afternoon Session I Bras Basah ART *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Canning INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG VIP A SEC tokbind Token Binding WG Padang TSV quic QUIC WG 1550-1750 Afternoon Session II Padang IRTF*** t2trg Thing-to-Thing Olivia RTG bier Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG Sophia SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG WEDNESDAY, November 15, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Canning INT dnssd Extensions for Scalable DNS Service = Discovery WG Olivia INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG = - 1100-1200 VIP A IRTF icnrg Information-Centric Networking Collyer TSV quic QUIC WG 1330-1500 Afternoon Session I Bras Basah ART uta Using TLS in Applications WG VIP A RTG *** roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks WG Collyer SEC *** teep Trusted Execution Environment = Provisioning BOF Orchard TSV rmcat RTP Media Congestion Avoidance = Techniques WG 1520-1650 Afternoon Session II Collyer INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG VIP A IRTF cfrg Crypto Forum Orchard SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG THURSDAY, November 16, 2017 0930-1200 Morning Session I Padang IRTF irtfopen IRTF Open Meeting Collyer OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Sophia RTG detnet Deterministic Networking WG Canning SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG 1330-1530 Afternoon Session I Sophia INT *** 6lo IPv6 over Networks of = Resource-constrained Nodes WG Collyer IRTF panrg Path Aware Networking Proposed RG Padang SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting 1550-1750 Afternoon Session II Olivia ART *** cbor Concise Binary Object Representation = Maintenance and Extensions WG VIP A ART ice Interactive Connectivity Establishment = WG - 1550-1650 Canning RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting Sophia SEC acme Automated Certificate Management = Environment WG 1810-1910 Afternoon Session III VIP A SEC curdle CURves, Deprecating and a Little more = Encryption WG Padang TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting FRIDAY, November 17, 2017 0930-1130 Morning Session I Canning ART httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG VIP A RTG babel Babel routing protocol WG Collyer TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG From nobody Mon Oct 23 01:00:50 2017 Return-Path: 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 8324D13EE39 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:00:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.079 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 mQvTgu1QgNEp for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net [194.109.24.22]) (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 31A4113EE35 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([IPv6:2001:888:0:22:194:109:20:216]) by smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net with ESMTPA id 6Xf7ekMJYnIXb6Xf7eZDlo; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:00:44 +0200 Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-102-56.w90-0.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.0.5.56]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:00:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:00:41 +0200 From: peter van der Stok To: Roll Organization: vanderstok consultancy Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org Message-ID: X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNxuQS+tNcgeidANscZP7wP0gcKDgcWgcnQbLd2pEjc6vMcnRgoeqI27+8xbFuB3LkQAkeSph5rjUSqKJeuHvm9QbtjpgNoBsiTAE03CXarfP0V+qaai l5+llZOkVpOjAfcya+jGBx+JtWT7ICCTzSl2AufMJ2Anw4v32LRQ1ctiySIlSyCwaeV1ro138gnuWQWsuaGYJf/WIoqSpowNs3I= Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] roll ietf100 agenda X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:00:48 -0000 Hi Roll, we do have a session of one hour and a half at next ietf100 meeting roll Session 1 (1:30:00) Wednesday, Afternoon Session I 1330-1500 Room Name: VIP A size: 100 --------------------------------------------- We are looking forward to receive suggestions for topic discussions. Please let us know your request for a slot with the following info: your name, topic, why, which draft. Personally, I was looking forward to discuss the relations between the actual drafts, and possibly new topics. Anyone wants to contribute to that discussion? Thanks for your reactions, Ines and Peter -- Peter van der Stok vanderstok consultancy mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org www: www.vanderstok.org tel NL: +31(0)492474673 F: +33(0)966015248 From nobody Fri Oct 27 09:06:29 2017 Return-Path: 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 1B7EC13F647 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:06:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailfence.com 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 XKwHFFY73-5L for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com (mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com [212.3.242.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C858C13F641 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth1.co-bxl (smtpauth1.co-bxl [10.2.0.15]) by mailout-l3b-97.contactoffice.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA08C7D4 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:06:22 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mailfence.com; s=20160819-nLV10XS2; t=1509120382; bh=NiyFqAFRT8a91UDSaOyE0aW3WFGkQBfdW/QP1MZ6mTg=; h=In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Subject:To:From; b=h9TfTGXFHpi15TNLgphFrvvEonzGXKZetSzyzb9vR3kbSJt5ymNfi0zdY0DVmeeFZ 4bclMkdBi8W6/lYJbCQ3R/e+5Y/hTRTJryC28kwMPIsQJBaTvE4bB+Bqf0uovFws1c qEqHuEeRYNStzrJ7ib/czW1oPIBYn/VlnkRCngWyeItVhQy3f8S5YKN3smQUI25y3i QBTGMLiIbdBTHOwT5VsU70FDV/o3u/BkMnsaMpjmrEyCFlXnglVr3R7KK5uRTA9N7h ee0leYdJEgzy6Czkd/45TzZYrrY7rRh+8mDjNzNbt4lW1i7x1f2C3G4aYtWdu7cY49 h0NcU0fT7c/AQ== Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175]) by smtp.mailfence.com (envelope-from ) with ESMTPA for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:06:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id k123so8943793qke.3 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaU5mMxwNPe7yzuZulYjA32GCbrF3cjeRQoN/gzlkBEZ+jpQEmGO lbkN+lGdugbZ2Afz06+njtvaNdUXyKdBrfuyCTk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Rq/HE5JDitOTqFpJF0ITOFla3vil+Sc7xopFodvm+sq2ji8cTkxHApWlR2QzGXjC6zKe99wso+L/uWfYLl+9k= X-Received: by 10.55.119.70 with SMTP id s67mr1441080qkc.294.1509120377028; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.148.15 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:05:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <150911868504.22131.13041586663519649456.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <150911868504.22131.13041586663519649456.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:06:19 +0200 (CEST) X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: roll@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05ea82ff08e4055c89777d" X-ContactOffice-Account: com:113819248 Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:06:28 -0000 --94eb2c05ea82ff08e4055c89777d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello all, We have just submitted a new draft describing the format and functionality of an optional TLV carried within the RPL DIO Control Message in the Metric Container option, as part of the NSA object (RFC6551), for broadcasting parent node set address information in order to support Alternative Parent selection for Packet Replication and Elimination. Aris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:38 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt To: Nicolas Montavont , Pascal Thubert , Georgios Papadopoulos , Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis A new version of I-D, draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension Revision: 00 Title: RPL DAG Metric Container (MC) Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension Document date: 2017-10-26 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 9 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pkm-roll-nsa- extension-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pkm-roll-nsa- extension/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pkm-roll-nsa- extension-00 Abstract: Implementing 6TiSCH Packet Replication and Elimination from / to the RPL root requires the ability to forward copies of packets over different paths via different RPL parents. Selecting the appropriate parents to achieve ultra-low latency and jitter requires information about a node's parents. This document details what information needs to be transmitted and how it is encoded within a packet to enable this functionality. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --94eb2c05ea82ff08e4055c89777d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello all,

We have just submitted a= new draft describing the format and functionality of an optional TLV carried w= ithin the R= PL DIO Control Message in the Metric Container option, as part of th= e NSA object (RFC6551),
for broadcasting parent node set address informa= tion in order to support Alternative Parent selection for Packet Replicati= on and Elimination.

Aris



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:38 PM
Subject: New Version Notificatio= n for draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt
To: Nicolas Montavont <nicolas.montavont@imt-atlantique.fr>, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, Georgios Papadopoulos <georgios.papadopoulos= @im= t-a= tlantique.fr>, Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <aris@ariskou.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension
Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A000
Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 RPL DAG Metric Container (MC) Node St= ate and Attribute (NSA) object type extension
Document date:=C2=A0 2017-10-26
Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Individual Submission
Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 9
URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-ext= ension-00.= txt
Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension/
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://= tools.ietf= .org/html/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://= datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00=


Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Implementing 6TiSCH Packet Replication and Elimination from / = to the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0RPL root requires the ability to forward copies of packets over =C2=A0 =C2=A0different paths via different RPL parents.=C2=A0 Selecting the = appropriate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0parents to achieve ultra-low latency and jitter requires infor= mation
=C2=A0 =C2=A0about a node's parents.=C2=A0 This document details what i= nformation needs
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to be transmitted and how it is encoded within a packet to ena= ble
=C2=A0 =C2=A0this functionality.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the = htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat


--94eb2c05ea82ff08e4055c89777d-- From nobody Sat Oct 28 04:15:47 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietf.org Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E829813F46A; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 04:15:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: roll@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150918933890.2568.7752862275405483395@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 04:15:38 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-17.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 11:15:39 -0000 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 : When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 Authors : Maria Ines Robles Michael C. Richardson Pascal Thubert Filename : draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-17.txt Pages : 48 Date : 2017-10-28 Abstract: This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which to design efficient compression of these headers. Additionally, this document updates the RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type and the RFC 6550 to indicate about this change. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-17 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-17 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-17 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Oct 30 00:40:10 2017 Return-Path: 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 3F76013F6BD for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:40:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=imt-atlantique.net 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 iYzdBwl-kom5 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr (zproxy110.enst.fr [137.194.2.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB04C139F67 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9055B8191B; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:40:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (zproxy110.enst.fr [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id csGU-gO06oy0; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:40:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1D4819B3; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:40:02 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zproxy110.enst.fr DE1D4819B3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=imt-atlantique.net; s=6A0CDB44-C782-11E6-82EC-91BDBA474D24; t=1509349202; bh=4ywv4HU1BiQCeyrOgoxBbvfVqoD3U84tbpzXiZfHJSA=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Wq0rznixdY2YFnzPniJsut6esDH94ZQtVdCi7uERyUO201Omztj/DMGM389u82wQR 60CIoI1vzxz3fw9pHAcbf9uqqY4SkIbvSc00gSGd4BILJkAFS8saiscFIOOMkw2yHt 8II4UZZfHvzEwGPxQNIym1uP9QCCYfShB63ef3fQ= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy110.enst.fr Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (zproxy110.enst.fr [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 4ScQ7dgUKBek; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:40:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from zmail131.enst.fr (zmail131.enst.fr [137.194.2.203]) by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B598281039; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:40:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:40:02 +0100 (CET) From: Chenyang JI To: roll@ietf.org Cc: jichenyang920 Message-ID: <961578433.3782382.1509349202587.JavaMail.zimbra@imt-atlantique.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [2001:660:7301:51:c126:3f76:249e:b974] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.7.11_GA_1854 (ZimbraWebClient - FF56 (Linux)/8.7.11_GA_1854) Thread-Index: scGtGtECzxp8Ez74Cq84pyO91p2VoA== Thread-Topic: Child count in parent selection Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Child count in parent selection X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:40:08 -0000 Hello, I have some questions about draft-hou-roll-rpl-parent-selection-00 and draft-qasem-roll-rpl-load-balancing-01. In the draft,it describes a new type of metric which has this format: CNC: 8 bits. The Child Node Count is encoded in 8 bits in unsigned integer format, expressed in number count, representing the number of child nodes. MAX_CNC: 8 bits. The Maximum Child Node Count is encoded in 8 bits in unsigned integer format, expressed in number count, representing the maximum number of child nodes allowed in the neighbor cache. but it does not clarify if this number of child nodes refers to the number of direct child or the subtree size. In draft-qasem-roll-rpl-load-balancing-01: In LB-OF algorithm, the received DIO from the child node is counted by the preferred parent node. Each DIO contains the IP address of the chosen preferred parent as detailed in section 4.3. Thus, for each received DIO, the node matches its own IP address with the preferred parent IP address which is inserted in the DIO message, then increments the number of children by ONE for this node if there is a matching. My question is if that mean it will store the children's address and if yes,how will the node stores its children. The first draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hou-roll-rpl-parent-selection-00 The second draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-qasem-roll-rpl-load-balancing Best regards, Chenyang Ji From nobody Mon Oct 30 07:32:30 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietf.org Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9963713FA1D; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:32:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: roll@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150937394259.3441.10845490576208293399@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:32:22 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-18.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:32:23 -0000 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 : When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 Authors : Maria Ines Robles Michael C. Richardson Pascal Thubert Filename : draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-18.txt Pages : 45 Date : 2017-10-30 Abstract: This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which to design efficient compression of these headers. Additionally, this document updates the RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type and the RFC 6550 to indicate about this change. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-18 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-18 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-18 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Oct 30 07:49:02 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietf.org Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DA313FA27; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:48:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: roll@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150937493370.3306.2177325350944409356@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:48:53 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:48:54 -0000 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 : When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 Authors : Maria Ines Robles Michael C. Richardson Pascal Thubert Filename : draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19.txt Pages : 45 Date : 2017-10-30 Abstract: This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which to design efficient compression of these headers. Additionally, this document updates the RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type and the RFC 6550 to indicate about this change. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Oct 30 07:49:24 2017 Return-Path: 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 4674613F89B for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:49:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 XqvO4yfjfyIw for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1CD813B0EA for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94715200E3 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:49:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E733081694 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:49:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: <150937394259.3441.10845490576208293399@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <150937394259.3441.10845490576208293399@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1 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 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-18.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:49:22 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-18 The differences between -17 and -18 are mostly grammar and typos. I tried to remove all active cases of "we propose", etc. And some updates for IDs that are now RFCs. I wasn't sure that I'd have time to review so I asked Ines to post -17 without my review last week. Most of you should read: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-16&url2=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-18 There is one difference though: 6.3.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf Prior to being able to leave RPI headers in, one had to send to the 6LBR and then have the 6LBR send down using hop-by-hop IPIP headers. This is no longer necessary. So... I sure hope this document is done. Finally, I think that we need to push for I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis to make removal of IPIP headers mandatory for hosts, and I will take this comment to 6man. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAln3O+EACgkQgItw+93Q 3WVavQgAoLqzrVn/vdH/ZfjkCI8hi88hLzxFYPe6S4WAb+MC4bZIoZCtqSP5VuDd /HI+l6SinqhV66Hk/pOxVA/a2uttk06HI6eqEjt1ADV6XxejJfbomQM97YOKe5is iu9fJmlYAzYZhB/YuWXqq6Xo5niC1kp5Wi0wRMBGzF4Lm/IfH3P+JCXYfWdmFMuK KFc2dU22tYRLi6xwM5nNwIGPcz+1T+R9qUpD1J8oV/nUOQy4/AhBJcK8Oxb5lXMc ZnJH506wfjkKjNpwTQJwRrlNYMahlBTXkB8FheH4SXAExbaBAW8ElY4J1UvgdBTC TiAppQypAatSE2uIyxgg+LGhD0U+Gw== =vVis -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Mon Oct 30 08:01:38 2017 Return-Path: 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 520B8133078 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:44:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 7XLMoH1Hgtau for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C910713305E for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 1EB6EB80316; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:44:24 -0700 (PDT) To: wintert@acm.org, pthubert@cisco.com, abr@sdesigns.dk, jhui@archrock.com, kelsey@ember.com, pal@cs.stanford.edu, kpister@dustnetworks.com, rstruik.ext@gmail.com, jpv@cisco.com, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com, akatlas@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com, consultancy@vanderstok.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: aris@ariskou.com, roll@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20171018094424.1EB6EB80316@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:01:33 -0700 Subject: [Roll] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6550 (5160) X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Oct 2017 09:44:47 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6550, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5160 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis Section: 6.7.4 Original Text ------------- The DAG Metric Container option MAY be present in DIO or DAO messages, and its format is as follows: Corrected Text -------------- The DAG Metric Container option MAY be present in the DIO message, and its format is as follows: Notes ----- The DAG Metric Container is not defined as one of the valid options in Section 6.4.3. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6550 (draft-ietf-roll-rpl-19) -------------------------------------- Title : RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks Publication Date : March 2012 Author(s) : T. Winter, Ed., P. Thubert, Ed., A. Brandt, J. Hui, R. Kelsey, P. Levis, K. Pister, R. Struik, JP. Vasseur, R. Alexander Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Mon Oct 30 08:54:31 2017 Return-Path: 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 3ABE213FE48 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:54:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 3AjUXTs6NXBX for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net (lb3-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net [194.109.24.30]) (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 5146A4BE0 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([IPv6:2001:888:0:22:194:109:20:213]) by smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net with ESMTPA id 9CEceS98CnIXb9CEce2i5V; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:44:19 +0100 Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-160-210.w90-0.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.0.255.210]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:44:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:44:18 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: Roll Organization: vanderstok consultancy Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: <150937493370.3306.2177325350944409356@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <150937493370.3306.2177325350944409356@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: <44712aa25fcd540399ea13482e8273f0@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfAnHbH8BDLjc4wmTjZK9QKmCEdLlizDvtD/GA8FZoPt6yA2j1x5sonVXQXivIOsyN2JPQDnbeEgsRVl+fc4uu7sxfr8VjbaSsX7UbwCgVuKaMTki5i0x cG0zuorSbH73C71mHSZekPY8/Ac0X1A9biSPl+cO2CzUdJWX0ECU7MRcxBtg3PTYMsmlIk8IwOcD50XCR3xKSGotHdJvUil8cos= Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] WGLC: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:54:30 -0000 This message constitutes a Working group last call for useofrplinfo draft. The draft has gone through many stages and has attained a stable state. A 2 week review period ending at Monday 13 November has now started. Please read the draft and send your comments to the Mailing List. ending your approval that you agree with this last version will be appreciated. Greetings, thanks, Peter -------- Oorspronkelijke bericht -------- Onderwerp: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19.txt Datum: 2017-10-30 15:48 Afzender: internet-drafts@ietf.org Ontvanger: Kopie: roll@ietf.org Antwoord-aan: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks 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 : When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 Authors : Maria Ines Robles Michael C. Richardson Pascal Thubert Filename : draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19.txt Pages : 45 Date : 2017-10-30 Abstract: This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which to design efficient compression of these headers. Additionally, this document updates the RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type and the RFC 6550 to indicate about this change. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From nobody Mon Oct 30 08:57:20 2017 Return-Path: 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 3338A13FC58 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:57:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=imt-atlantique.fr 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 S7SWfqafLCR1 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zproxy130.enst.fr (zproxy130.enst.fr [137.194.2.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A008A4D2E for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:48:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by zproxy130.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB481202E5 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:48:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from zproxy130.enst.fr ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (zproxy130.enst.fr [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id yjHWMz9UcXOY for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:48:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by zproxy130.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D33712070B for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:48:08 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zproxy130.enst.fr 4D33712070B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=imt-atlantique.fr; s=50EA75E8-DE22-11E6-A6DE-0662BA474D24; t=1509378488; bh=4VdbonK5uEoLZi2qAnXtEOjH4gZPYiSVYpWUqldnji4=; h=From:Message-Id:Mime-Version:Date:To; b=Pc1XJ1SzMdhq81rImj3uHpfQivx2v2/L8FGTTpaF+ab91OTAxAFi+/2b36ATM2LTx IF6X2chfwkzg0OVlRGLLtzzdaWlift4ZlawfWfuAqBFYowruWtqVYpwhhk8G6eg0ti pIuEmu0zFRq2kt5XxOb8LIWdRnb0G99WqAkICpg0= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy130.enst.fr Received: from zproxy130.enst.fr ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (zproxy130.enst.fr [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id SxhABWL8ypCj for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:48:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from [IPv6:2001:660:7301:3728:1c9f:eaa0:6269:4243] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:7301:3728:1c9f:eaa0:6269:4243]) by zproxy130.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0311D120372 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:48:07 +0100 (CET) From: "Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_98B230CE-34AD-4CEA-B7B4-CA14159C7617" Message-Id: <77858D4C-3014-4CF6-9486-CC5C580CECB6@imt-atlantique.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:48:07 +0100 References: <150911868504.22131.13041586663519649456.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New Version Notification for draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:57:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_98B230CE-34AD-4CEA-B7B4-CA14159C7617 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello again, To initiate the discussion over the ML before the IETF100, we would like = to further motivate the use of our submitted draft = (draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00 "RPL DAG Metric Container (MC) Node = State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension"). In an attempt to provide ultra-high reliability and ultra-low jitter = performance in RPL-based networks, Packet Replication and Elimination = (PRE) is a highly recommended scheme to employ. Under PRE, each node forwards copies of a single data packet over = different and congruent paths via different RPL parents. In order to constrain the pool of alternative paths, an alternative = parent among the list of possible parents need to be chosen.=20 To this aim, a potential parent's parent set needs to be known.=20 This draft defines how this information can be included and transmitted = via DIO control messages. Best, Aris, Georgios, Nicolas and Pascal > On Oct 27, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis = wrote: >=20 > Hello all, >=20 > We have just submitted a new draft describing the format and = functionality of an optional TLV carried within the RPL DIO Control = Message in the Metric Container option, as part of the NSA object = (RFC6551), > for broadcasting parent node set address information in order to = support Alternative Parent selection for Packet Replication and = Elimination. >=20 > Aris >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:38 PM > Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt > To: Nicolas Montavont , Pascal = Thubert , Georgios Papadopoulos = , Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis = >=20 >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis and posted = to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Name: draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension > Revision: 00 > Title: RPL DAG Metric Container (MC) Node State and Attribute = (NSA) object type extension > Document date: 2017-10-26 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 9 > URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt = = > Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension/ = > Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00 = > Htmlized: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00 = >=20 >=20 > Abstract: > Implementing 6TiSCH Packet Replication and Elimination from / to = the > RPL root requires the ability to forward copies of packets over > different paths via different RPL parents. Selecting the = appropriate > parents to achieve ultra-low latency and jitter requires = information > about a node's parents. This document details what information = needs > to be transmitted and how it is encoded within a packet to enable > this functionality. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org = . >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll --Apple-Mail=_98B230CE-34AD-4CEA-B7B4-CA14159C7617 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Hello again,

To initiate the = discussion over the ML before the IETF100, we would like to further = motivate the use of our submitted draft (draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00 = "RPL DAG Metric Container (MC) Node State and Attribute (NSA) object = type extension").

In an attempt to provide ultra-high reliability and ultra-low = jitter performance in RPL-based networks, Packet Replication and = Elimination (PRE) is a highly recommended scheme to employ.
Under PRE, each node forwards copies of a single data packet = over different and congruent paths via different RPL parents.
In order to constrain the pool of alternative paths, an = alternative parent among the list of possible parents need to be = chosen. 
To this aim, a potential parent's = parent set needs to be known. 
This draft = defines how this information can be included and transmitted via DIO = control messages.

Best,
Aris, Georgios, Nicolas and = Pascal


On Oct 27, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Remous-Aris = Koutsiamanis <aris@ariskou.com> wrote:

Hello all,

We have just submitted a new draft describing the = format and functionality of an optional TLV carried within the RPL DIO = Control Message in the Metric Container option, as part of the NSA = object (RFC6551),
for broadcasting parent node set address = information in order to support Alternative Parent selection for Packet = Replication and Elimination.

Aris



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:38 PM
Subject: New = Version Notification for draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt
To: Nicolas = Montavont <nicolas.montavont@imt-atlantique.fr>, Pascal = Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, = Georgios Papadopoulos <georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr>, Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <aris@ariskou.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension
Revision:       00
Title:          RPL DAG Metric Container = (MC) Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension
Document date:  2017-10-26
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          9
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pkm-roll-nsa-extension-00


Abstract:
   Implementing 6TiSCH Packet Replication and Elimination from = / to the
   RPL root requires the ability to forward copies = of packets over
   different paths via different RPL parents.  Selecting = the appropriate
   parents to achieve ultra-low latency and jitter requires = information
   about a node's parents.  This document details what = information needs
   to be transmitted and how it is encoded within a packet to = enable
   this functionality.




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

The IETF Secretariat


_______________________________________________
Roll = mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

= --Apple-Mail=_98B230CE-34AD-4CEA-B7B4-CA14159C7617-- From nobody Mon Oct 30 09:25:50 2017 Return-Path: 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 7705B8002 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 tlRUID3DjuG2 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:25:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net (lb2-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net [194.109.24.26]) (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 A95E66663 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([IPv6:2001:888:0:22:194:109:20:213]) by smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net with ESMTPA id 9CifeSXTlnIXb9Cife2rzh; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 17:15:21 +0100 Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-160-210.w90-0.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.0.255.210]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 17:15:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 17:15:21 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: Roll Organization: vanderstok consultancy Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: <44712aa25fcd540399ea13482e8273f0@xs4all.nl> References: <150937493370.3306.2177325350944409356@ietfa.amsl.com> <44712aa25fcd540399ea13482e8273f0@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfFdkARVgZhVDJGAJ5q9cdUn/1zilj8GXiPxSQu8GvtzYWy1PKn4bZtnqAKcpX5t6UNK3YHhcRoytg9B3D9z1uFfF7TJoxoUpFd3ThIJXMM3uyEpyCsZx tsY1tcKwHrWe+xiuuif9oSuLdU5qpYiAHe78juB31fuv7TV99MnGyHG0/SO3TYF4Pu6elWpBh51zQjpEBNvLUrMFPEum/JTD4wE= Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Fwd: WGLC: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19.txt (2nd try) X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:25:48 -0000 Hi Roll, This message constitutes a Working group last call for useofrplinfo draft. The draft has gone through many stages and has attained a stable state. A 2 week review period ending at Monday 13 November has now started. Please read the draft and send your comments to the Mailing List. Sending your approval that you agree with this last version will be appreciated. Greetings, thanks, Peter -------- Oorspronkelijke bericht -------- Onderwerp: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19.txt Datum: 2017-10-30 15:48 Afzender: internet-drafts@ietf.org Ontvanger: Kopie: roll@ietf.org Antwoord-aan: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks 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 : When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 Authors : Maria Ines Robles Michael C. Richardson Pascal Thubert Filename : draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19.txt Pages : 45 Date : 2017-10-30 Abstract: This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which to design efficient compression of these headers. Additionally, this document updates the RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type and the RFC 6550 to indicate about this change. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-19 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ 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 From nobody Mon Oct 30 15:31:20 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietf.org Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5808913F3F5; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:31:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: roll@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150940267332.28262.10404706092484200439@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:31:13 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-ccast-01.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:31:13 -0000 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 : Constrained-Cast: Source-Routed Multicast for RPL Authors : Olaf Bergmann Carsten Bormann Stefanie Gerdes Hao Chen Filename : draft-ietf-roll-ccast-01.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2017-10-30 Abstract: This specification defines a protocol for forwarding multicast traffic in a constrained node network employing the RPL routing protocol in non-storing mode. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-ccast/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-ccast-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-ccast-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-ccast-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Oct 30 15:35:26 2017 Return-Path: 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 6F67C13FB6E for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:35:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 R7xocpitGCCd for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (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 97E9513942C for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:35:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::b]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9UMZHWj024084 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 23:35:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from wangari.tzi.org (p508A45B4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.138.69.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3yQq793KnRzDWTq for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 23:35:17 +0100 (CET) From: Olaf Bergmann To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks References: <150940267332.28262.10404706092484200439@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 23:35:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <150940267332.28262.10404706092484200439@ietfa.amsl.com> (internet-drafts@ietf.org's message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:31:13 -0700") Message-ID: <8760aws1qz.fsf@tzi.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-ccast-01.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35:24 -0000 Dear all, We have updated the draft about Source-Routed Multicast for RPL. The major difference is that we now use a new SRH-6LoRH type as was suggested during the ROLL session at IETF-99. Comments are welcome! Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe Olaf > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy network= s WG of the IETF. > > Title : Constrained-Cast: Source-Routed Multicast for R= PL > Authors : Olaf Bergmann > Carsten Bormann > Stefanie Gerdes > Hao Chen > Filename : draft-ietf-roll-ccast-01.txt > Pages : 10 > Date : 2017-10-30 > > Abstract: > This specification defines a protocol for forwarding multicast > traffic in a constrained node network employing the RPL routing > protocol in non-storing mode. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-ccast/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-ccast-01 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-ccast-01 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-roll-ccast-01 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > From nobody Mon Oct 30 18:42:35 2017 Return-Path: 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 4615013FBE1 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:42:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_MIME_MALF=0.01] 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 1A9l3_fUwN5e for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC98113FC7C for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DYW99036; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 01:42:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.210) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 01:42:28 +0000 Received: from DGGEMM506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.18]) by DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.210]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:42:20 +0800 From: "Houjianqiang (Derek)" To: "chenyang.ji@imt-atlantique.net" CC: "roll@ietf.org" , "jichenyang920@gmail.com" , "Qasem, Mamoun" Thread-Topic: Re: [Roll] Child count in parent selection Thread-Index: AdNR5qGs8C64+4nvRem9wuaViXd9zQ== Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 01:42:19 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.134.134.224] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DD0A994E4D6B3F4080662703C8C7C086A8C793DGGEMM506MBSchina_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020206.59F7D505.0067, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.18, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: ee8308099e623ea1865049da10d2dc57 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] Child count in parent selection X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 01:42:34 -0000 --_000_DD0A994E4D6B3F4080662703C8C7C086A8C793DGGEMM506MBSchina_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Chenyang Many thanks for your interest in our draft. I am happy to answer your quest= ions. Please see my response in line. Best regards, Jianqiang Hou (Derek) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:40:02 +0100 (CET) From: Chenyang JI > To: roll@ietf.org Cc: jichenyang920 > Subject: [Roll] Child count in parent selection Message-ID: <961578433.3782382.1509349202587.JavaMail.zimbra@imt-atlant= ique.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8 Hello, I have some questions about draft-hou-roll-rpl-parent-selection-00 and draf= t-qasem-roll-rpl-load-balancing-01. In the draft,it describes a new type of metric which has this format: CNC: 8 bits. The Child Node Count is encoded in 8 bits in unsigned integer = format, expressed in number count, representing the number of child nodes. MAX_CNC: 8 bits. The Maximum Child Node Count is encoded in 8 bits in unsig= ned integer format, expressed in number count, representing the maximum num= ber of child nodes allowed in the neighbor cache. but it does not clarify if this number of child nodes refers to the number = of direct child or the subtree size. [Jianqiang] My mistake... This number of child nodes refers to the number o= f direct child. In draft-qasem-roll-rpl-load-balancing-01: In LB-OF algorithm, the received DIO from the child node is counted by the = preferred parent node. Each DIO contains the IP address of the chosen prefe= rred parent as detailed in section 4.3. Thus, for each received DIO, the no= de matches its own IP address with the preferred parent IP address which is= inserted in the DIO message, then increments the number of children by ONE= for this node if there is a matching. My question is if that mean it will store the children's address and if yes= ,how will the node stores its children. [Jianqiang] There are two possible ways of storing its children. One is to = store the children's address in a new table with extra cache, the other way= is to manage the neighbor cache entry (after all the direct children set i= s a subset of the neighbor set). The first draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hou-roll-rpl-parent-selection-00 The second draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-qasem-roll-rpl-load-balancing Best regards, Chenyang Ji --_000_DD0A994E4D6B3F4080662703C8C7C086A8C793DGGEMM506MBSchina_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Chenyang

 

Many thanks for you= r interest in our draft. I am happy to answer your questions. Please see my= response in line.

 

Best regards,<= /o:p>

Jianqiang Hou (Dere= k)

 

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:40:02 +0100 (CET)

From: Chenyang JI <chenyang.ji@imt-atlantique.net>

To: roll@ietf.or= g

Cc: jichenyang920 <jichenyang920@gmail.com>

Subject: [Roll] Child count in parent selection

Message-ID:

        &= nbsp;       <961578433.3782382.= 1509349202587.JavaMail.zimbra@imt-atlantique.net>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8

 

Hello,

 

I have some questions about draft-hou-roll-rpl-pa= rent-selection-00 and draft-qasem-roll-rpl-load-balancing-01.

In the draft,it describes a new type of metric wh= ich has this format:

 

CNC: 8 bits. The Child Node Count is encoded in 8= bits in unsigned integer format, expressed in number count, representing t= he number of child nodes.

 

MAX_CNC: 8 bits. The Maximum Child Node Count is = encoded in 8 bits in unsigned integer format, expressed in number count, re= presenting the maximum number of child nodes allowed in the neighbor cache.=

 

but it does not clarify if this number of child n= odes refers to the number of direct child or the subtree size.

[Jianqiang] My m= istake… This number of child nodes refers to the number of direct chi= ld.

 

In draft-qasem-roll-rpl-load-balancing-01:

 

In LB-OF algorithm, the received DIO from the chi= ld node is counted by the preferred parent node. Each DIO contains the IP a= ddress of the chosen preferred parent as detailed in section 4.3. Thus, for= each received DIO, the node matches its own IP address with the preferred parent IP address which is inserted = in the DIO message, then increments the number of children by ONE for this = node if there is a matching.

 

My question is if that mean it will store the chi= ldren's address and if yes,how will the node stores its children.

[Jianqiang] Ther= e are two possible ways of storing its children. One is to store the childr= en’s address in a new table with extra cache, the other way is to man= age the neighbor cache entry (after all the direct children set is a subset of the neighbor set).

 

The first draft

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hou-roll-rp= l-parent-selection-00

 

The second draft

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/= draft-qasem-roll-rpl-load-balancing

 

Best regards,

Chenyang Ji

=  

 

--_000_DD0A994E4D6B3F4080662703C8C7C086A8C793DGGEMM506MBSchina_--