Subject: [Roll] [roll] #63: Clarification and Modification in the Manageability Section

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 06:21:36 -0000

#63: Clarification and Modification in the Manageability Section
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  jpv@…            |       Owner:  jpv@…        
     Type:  enhancement      |      Status:  new          
 Priority:  minor            |   Milestone:               
Component:  rpl              |     Version:               
 Severity:  In WG Last Call  |    Keywords:               
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Two set of comments were sent with regards to the Manageability section
 during WG Last Call. First set send with a file attached on the mailing
 list on July 13. Second set below:

 Email from Mathilde Durvy on July 13:

 Hi All,

 Just reviewed Section 16, here is some feedback that might help clarify:

 - In 16.2.3, 16.2.4 It is not very clear which parameters are configured
 versus negotiated dynamically through messages.
 - In 16.2.4 “A RPL implementation SHOULD allow configuring whether a non-
 storing node provides the transit information in DAO messages.” Shouldn’t
 a node always include the transit info in DAO messages? Aren’t the 2 first
 bullet related to the DAO mechanism and hence more appropriate in Section
 16.2.6 (or maybe we should just remove Section 16.2.6)
 - In 16.2.5, T flag has not been removed
 - In 16.2.6, this section contains legacy text (already mentioned in
 previous email thread)
 - In 16.6, is the DODAGID necessarily part of the policy?
 - In 16.7/16.9 or 16.4. Maybe it would help to further specify what
 services RPL expects to be handled by other protocols such as ND. I’m
 talking of course of services that RPL directly relies on to operate. NUD
 is mentioned but what about address resolution, etc. I guess this is kind
 of standard so not sure if we should include it.
 - In general, Sections 16.3 to 16.5 can be difficult to implement on
 constrained nodes without interface or file system. I would emphasize that
 it is expected that constrained nodes do not implement these parts.

 Best,
 Mathilde

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/63>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:45:27 -0000

#63: Clarification and Modification in the Manageability Section
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  jpv@…            |        Owner:  jpv@…        
     Type:  enhancement      |       Status:  closed       
 Priority:  minor            |    Milestone:               
Component:  rpl              |      Version:               
 Severity:  In WG Last Call  |   Resolution:  fixed        
 Keywords:                   |  
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Changes (by jpv@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/63#comment:1>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>