Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-28.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 01:56:25 -0700

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           : Using RPL Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane
        Authors         : Maria Ines Robles
                          Michael C. Richardson
                          Pascal Thubert
	Filename        : draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-28.txt
	Pages           : 54
	Date            : 2019-05-17

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 (RPL Option Type), RFC 6554
   (Routing Header for Source Routes) and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is
   required in data plane.  This analysis provides the basis on which to
   design efficient compression of these headers.  This document updates
   RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type.  Additionally, this
   document updates RFC 6550 defining a flag in the DIO Configuration
   Option to indicate about this change and updates RFC8138 as well to
   consider the new Option Type when the RPL Option is decompressed.

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-28
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-28

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-28

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: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 15:41:57 -0400

draft-thubert-roll-unaware-leaves-07 uses the term:

   RPL provides unicast and
   multicast routing services back to RPL-Aware nodes (RANs)

while we used a term "RPL-aware-leaF" (RaF), which is almost, but
not quite the same thing.

Should we use a single term if possible.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 13:11:48 -0700

Hello folks,

I think that using 'f' for "leaf" isn't right.  What's wrong with 'l' - 
or (typographically better) 'L'?

Acronyms in general are often misused in ways that lead to reduced 
understanding.  Acronyms that don't suggest the phrases they abbreviate 
are guaranteed to increase head-scratching and reduce comprehension.

Also, I think that "RPL-unaware" would be much better than 
"not-RPL-aware".  And, then, "RuL' instead of the twiddly thing.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 5/17/2019 12:41 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 22:35:03 +0200

“Host” is a great word for a thing that is not a router.

If you call RPL-unaware things “hosts”, you reclaim the term “Leaf” for routers that don’t forward (“leaf router” in long form).

Look, ma, no abbrevs.

Grüße, Carsten

> On May 17, 2019, at 22:11, Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I think that using 'f' for "leaf" isn't right.  What's wrong with 'l' - or (typographically better) 'L'?
> 
> Acronyms in general are often misused in ways that lead to reduced understanding.  Acronyms that don't suggest the phrases they abbreviate are guaranteed to increase head-scratching and reduce comprehension.
> 
> Also, I think that "RPL-unaware" would be much better than "not-RPL-aware".  And, then, "RuL' instead of the twiddly thing.
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
>> Michael Richardson 
>> <[email-masked]>
>> , Sandelman Software Works

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 10:35:52 -0400

> “Host” is a great word for a thing that is not a router.

Point taken, and I want to go further with this.

    > If you call RPL-unaware things “hosts”, you reclaim the term “Leaf” for
    > routers that don’t forward (“leaf router” in long form).

The key point in useofrplinfo was that the *Host* was something that could
not understand the IPIP headers that we need in some places.

From reading roll-unaware-leaves, there is some ambiguity between Hosts
that choose not to participate in the routing mesh, and those that are
incapable of understanding the RPL artifacts.  I feel that a Host is
in the later category.

I am specifically thinking about a subsystem that might use ethernet
or PPP between Hosts, but have an edge device that speaks LLN.  The internal
nodes would be hosts, but the edge device would be RUL, but still a router.
The lack of connectivity might be more about range rather than power
(such as the window smash detector)

    > Look, ma, no abbrevs.

I'm specifically offering to change useofrplinfo's acronyms to match
roll-unaware-leaves.   It's at the IESG, but that change in terminology would
likely not have a signfiicant effect.

I resisted calling ~RAF == Hosts because I was concerned I'd confuse things worse.
I was trying to get processing of IPIP headers (where both IPdst=self) into
the revised IPv6 Host requirements document, but it seemed like a really big
fight, and I was busy.  Had I succeeded, then calling them Hosts would have
been good.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 10:37:04 -0400

> (typographically better) 'L'?

I have no strong recollection as to why we went with RaF rather than RaL.
I wonder if it was a typo that seemed to make sense at the time.

    > Also, I think that "RPL-unaware" would be much better than "not-RPL-aware".
    > And, then, "RuL' instead of the twiddly thing.

I feel the same way too.

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 20:26:02 +0000

Btw I agree with Michael ‘s proposal.

Regards,

Pascal

> Le 18 mai 2019 à 16:36, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> a écrit :
> 
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 18:44:16 -0400

>> likely not have a signfiicant effect.

Are there objections to this proposal.