Subject: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18.txt

From: Rahul Jadhav <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:31:19 +0800

Dear all,

Since unaware-leaves to coming close to closure, I thought now is the time
to make the update to this draft (it was in cross-ref with unaware-leaves).
We have a value for RPL Status Moved in DCO. And it is 195. The update
explains this.

Any feedback/comment is most appreciated.

References:
1. [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/XbzfMGSnLlMg7iLEKy8Vqo_FFJc/>
2. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/cxyoy9uUtWQoUsHc0ge8VUx-6KY/
3. Why 195?
https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/why-RPL-Status-195.png

Thanks,
Rahul

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 10:11
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18.txt
To: Pascal Thubert <[email-masked]>, Rahul Arvind Jadhav <
[email-masked]>, Rabi Narayan Sahoo <[email-masked]>, Zhen
Cao <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18.txt
has been successfully submitted by Rahul Arvind Jadhav and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao
Revision:       18
Title:          Efficient Route Invalidation
Document date:  2020-04-15
Group:          roll
Pages:          23
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18

Abstract:
   This document explains the problems associated with the current use
   of NPDAO messaging and also discusses the requirements for an
   optimized route invalidation messaging scheme.  Further a new
   proactive route invalidation message called as "Destination Cleanup
   Object" (DCO) is specified which fulfills requirements of an
   optimized route invalidation messaging.

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

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 13:30:03 -0700

On April 15, 2020 at 10:31:47 PM, Rahul Jadhav wrote:

Rahul:

Hi!

This change seems ok.  However, please keep in mind that this document
is already in the RFC Editor's queue...which in general means that we
shouldn't be changing it too much/often.

This is the new text you added:

   Value 195 represents 'E' and 'A' bit in RPL Status to be set as per
   Figure 3 of [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves] with the lower 6 bits with
   value 3 indicating 'Moved' as per Table 1 of [RFC8505].

I have a couple of comments:

1. [nit/minor] "'E' and 'A' bit in RPL Status to be set as per Figure
3"  The figure shows how the fields are placed in the RPL Status, not
how/when to set the bits.

2. [minor] "with the lower 6 bits with value 3"  This is technically
correct, but I had to read it a couple of times because the
combination of "bits" and "value" makes it sound as if bit 3 may be
set.

3. [major] Add a Normative reference to rfc8505.

Suggestion>
   An RPL Status of 195 represents the 'E' and 'A' bits set
   ([I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves]), and a Value of 3 ('Moved') as per Table 1
   of [RFC8505].

One more nit in Figure 3:  s/RPL  Status/RPL Status

Thanks!

Alvaro.

> Since unaware-leaves to coming close to closure, I thought now is the time to
> make the update to this draft (it was in cross-ref with unaware-leaves).
> 3. Why 195? https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/why-RPL-Status-195.png

---

From: Rahul Jadhav <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:20:28 +0800

Many thanks Alvaro for reviewing the changes.

I have made fixes for all the comments you made. (But I am not sure if I
have handled point 2 properly.)
So as not to push another version to datatracker till we have finalized
changes, I have pushed the changes to roll-wg repo, and hoping you could
please skim through the diff there.
https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/diff-draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao.html

Thanks,
Rahul

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 04:30, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > 2.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/cxyoy9uUtWQoUsHc0ge8VUx-6KY/
> > 3. Why 195?

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 12:09:04 +0000

Rahul:

Let’s leave it as is…we can add the reference later when the RFC Editor
edits the document.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On April 17, 2020 at 9:20:40 PM, Rahul Jadhav ([email-masked]) wrote:

Thanks,
Rahul