Subject: [Roll] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 02:44:42 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. I seems that all cases have been
thought of :-) Good job! and having a shorter path between two RPL nodes can be
benefitial of course.

Please find below one blocking (but probably trivial to fix) DISCUSS point,
some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some
nits.

Special thanks to Peter Van der Stock for the IoT directorate review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-iotdir-telechat-van-der-stok-2021-04-15/

To be honest, the lack of reply to Peter's review by the authors or by the WG a
little bit suprising (thank you to the RTG AD though).

Minor regret on the age of the document shepherd's write-up dated 2 years ago
and about the -06 version. Little is said about the WG consensus. But, I am
trusting the responsible AD on the consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

A very trivial to fix but I do want to have a justification of using
"point-to-point" (typically used over the two sides of a single link) vs.
"peer-to-peer" (typically used over multiple links). Is it intentional by the
ROLL WG ? Did I fail to understand the purpose of this document ? (quite
possible of course!). I am afraid that many people will interpret the
"point-to-point" like me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 4.3 --
Figure 3 has a 'X' while the text has a 'r' ;)

Any reason why using "Floor((7+(Prefix Length))/8) octets" rather than the
simple "Ceil(Prefix Length/8)" ?

-- Section 6.1 --
"Each node maintains a sequence number" does it impact constrained nodes ?

== NITS ==

-- Abstract --
"the links between source and target node are asymmetric" should this be
"nodes" (plural) ?

-- section 1 (and possibly others) --
I believe that the usual way to introduce acronyms is to first write the
expansion than the acronym itself. So " RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks)" does not seem to fit ;)

-- Section 5 --
"R is an intermediate router" or "Rs are intermediate routers" ?

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:42:43 -0700

On April 21, 2021 at 5:44:43 AM, Éric Vyncke wrote:

Éric:

Hi!  Thanks for the review!

Just replying to the DISCUSS.

...
...
> To be honest, the lack of reply to Peter's review by the authors or by the WG
> a little bit suprising (thank you to the RTG AD though).

I'll make sure the authors reply to Peter before we move forward.

[BTW, Peter was roll chair when this document went through WGLC. :-)
We're all very grateful for his work.]

...
> "point-to-point" like me.

That is the terminology that is used to describe this type of traffic
flow in RPL -- see rfc6550/§4 (Traffic Flows Supported by RPL).

Alvaro.

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:51:03 +0000

Alvaro,

Thank you for your reply and especially about:
- the INT directorate review
- the P2P naming... The §4 of RFC 6550 indeed uses this really unusual meaning for point-to-point :-( May I suggest the document authors to add an explanation on this semantic in the terminology as well as in the abstract (as it needs to stand by itself) ?

Happy to clear my trivial DISCUSS when the authors/WG agree with the above change.

Regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 12:42
To: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>, Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Ines Robles <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

    Éric:

    ...
    ...

    ...

    Alvaro.

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:05:19 -0700

On April 21, 2021 at 6:51:06 AM, Eric Vyncke wrote:

Éric:

> - the P2P naming... The §4 of RFC 6550 indeed uses this really unusual
> meaning for point-to-point :-( May I suggest the document authors to add an
> explanation on this semantic in the terminology as well as in the abstract
> (as it needs to stand by itself) ?

It's not unusual for RPL networks. ;-)

The terminology section already includes an entry (P2P).  Is that
enough or do you think more is needed?

For the abstract, how about adding this as the second sentence (which
is similar to what is in the rfc6550 abstract)?

   A P2P traffic flow is one between devices inside the LLN.

   [Note that the first sentence already has the expanded version of P2P and
   LLN.]

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:06:27 +0000

Thanks Alvaro!

We use P2P indeed; see also the title of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6997 "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low-Power and Lossy Networks" that this is supposed to extend.
This is as opposed to P2MP and MP2P models which are the most common patterns in LLN meshes. 

Take care,

Pascal

> From: Roll <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
> Sent: mercredi 21 avril 2021 12:43
> To: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
> <[email-masked]>; The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Ines Robles
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> > To be honest, the lack of reply to Peter's review by the authors or by
> > the WG a little bit suprising (thank you to the RTG AD though).
> 
> [BTW, Peter was roll chair when this document went through WGLC. :-) We're
> all very grateful for his work.]
> 
> 
> ...
> > == DISCUSS ==
> >
> > "peer-to-peer" (typically used over multiple links). Is it intentional
> > by the ROLL WG ? Did I fail to understand the purpose of this document
> > ? (quite possible of course!). I am afraid that many people will
> > interpret the "point-to-point" like me.
> 
> That is the terminology that is used to describe this type of traffic flow
> in RPL -- see rfc6550/§4 (Traffic Flows Supported by RPL).
> 
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:20:00 +0000

Alvaro,

The terminology section defines P2P as:
"P2P
      Point-to-Point -- in other words, not constrained a priori to
      traverse a common ancestor."

Which is a far fetch from usual "peer-to-peer" or similar wordings. But, this is indeed the place where I would put a more descriptive definition for non-RPL experts... + also in the abstract, which should be self standing IMHO.

A reply from the authors on those 2 topics will be welcome

Regards (and thanks for your time)

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 13:05
To: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>, Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Ines Robles <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

    Thanks!

    Alvaro.