Subject: [Roll] Ticket#71

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:17:07 +0200

Dear all,

Considering the wide consensus for option B, I have updated the text  
accordingly.

This requires 3 changes.

1) New text in Section 7.3, third bullet:

OLD:

"o  When a node receives a multicast DIS with a Solicited Information
       option and the node matches all of the predicates in the  
Solicited
       Information option."

NEW:

"o  When a node receives a multicast DIS with a Solicited Information
    option and the node matches all of the predicates in the Solicited
    Information option (carried in the DIS option field) and/or (to be
    defined) fields of the Flag field are set."

2) DIS Packet Format

OLD:

"0                   1                   2
         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |           Reserved            |   Option(s)...
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Winter, et al.          Expires December 30, 2010              [Page 30]
Internet-Draft           draft-ietf-roll-rpl-10                 Jun 2010

                        Figure 9: The DIS Base Object
"

NEW:

"0                   1                   2
         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        | Reserved      |     Flags     |   Option(s)...
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Winter, et al.          Expires December 30, 2010              [Page 30]
Internet-Draft           draft-ietf-roll-rpl-10                 Jun 2010

                        Figure 9: The DIS Base Object
"

3) IANA Section

to be added after 18.5.

18.6 New Registry for the DIS (DODAG Informational Solicitation) Flags

IANA is requested to create a registry for the DIS (DODAG Informational
Solicitation) Flag Field.

New fields may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.  Each
field should be tracked with the following qualities:

    o  Mode of Operation

    o  Capability description

    o  Defining RFC

No flags are currently defined.

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:07:18 -0700

On Jul 23, 2010, at 12:17 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Considering the wide consensus for option B, I have updated the text accordingly.
> 
> This requires 3 changes.
> 

I think this makes the whole thing more complicated. We now have flags that indicate whether you should check a predicate within the solicited information option, as well as flags in the DIS itself. Suddenly we're doing the same thing in two places: that seems like a mistake. I thought the agreement was to just add something to the solicited information option? Let me try another approach: we just need text that makes it clear one could just add a bit whose predicate is always false.

Phil

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:19:39 +0200

Phil,

I have to disagree. We have a 16 bits reserved bits field. Take 8 bits  
for flags,
add the registry to IANA, and then we have usable 8 bits. No need to  
insert
an option if a flag is sufficient. This is I think a much better design.

JP.

On Jul 23, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Philip Levis wrote:

> I think this makes the whole thing more complicated. We now have  
> flags that indicate whether you should check a predicate within the  
> solicited information option, as well as flags in the DIS itself.  
> Suddenly we're doing the same thing in two places: that seems like a  
> mistake. I thought the agreement was to just add something to the  
> solicited information option? Let me try another approach: we just  
> need text that makes it clear one could just add a bit whose  
> predicate is always false.
>
> Phil