Subject: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:58:12 -0700

Dear Pascal/Michael:

Thank you for working on this document!

I just finished reviewing it and find myself with a lot more comments,
questions, and concerns that I thought I would.  I'm highlighting some
of my major issues here, and have detailed comments in-line.

(1) What is a RUL?

 I assumed that a RUL would be a "plain" IPv6 node that is not aware of RPL
 at all.  That definition would include, of course, not being aware of this
 document...but §7 normatively defines requirements and expected behaviors
 for the RUL.  It feels like the chicken and the egg: the RUL is not
 aware...but it is expected to comply with this specification....but it's not
 aware...

 The definition of a RUL starts in the Introduction with a simple
 description: "RUL is an IPv6 Host [RFC8504]".  I know that rfc8504 includes
 a section on "Constrained Devices", but it just mentions that "compromises
 may need to be made".  This document, in the very next paragraph (!), adds
 other expectations (beyond rfc8504): support for 6LoWPAN ND...

 I can see in the email archive that going beyond rfc8504 is the intent, but
 that is not clearly reflected in the document.  I would like to see, at
 least, an early discussion (don't wait until §7!) of the expectations for a
 RUL.  Move §7 *before* you start discussing 6LoWPAN ND.

 I believe that describing the expectations may not preclude from assuming
 that the RUL is, in fact, unaware (of this document and RPL).  For example,
 instead of saying "a RUL MUST implement [RFC8505]", the text could say
 something like this:

   This document is based on the assumption that a RUL supports rfc8505...
   If the RUL doesn't support rfc8505, then the following behavior is not
   possible...or the node won't be able to join the LLN at all...or...

 IOW, instead of specifying how the unaware node should behave, describe what
 is expected and the resulting effect if those expectations are not met.
 Honestly, given some of the specifics in §7.1, for example "MUST...set the
 "R" and "T" flags in the EARO", I'm not sure it is possible to describe a
 general RUL without it having to comply with this document...but maybe worth
 a try.

 I don't think this specification can support an rfc8504 node trying to join
 the LLN, right?  What about cases where RPL is not used in a 6LoWPAN?

 [Aside: I ran into the "Advocating a generalisation of RFC8505 to non-6lo
 LANs" thread [1].  Did anything come out of that?  Is there a draft we can
 Informatively reference?]

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/mKWgLd5013cTBIOlgPg1op614z0/

(2) RUL vs. 6LN: does the RUL act as a 6LN, or does the 6LN act like a RUL?

 The text talks about a "6LN that is also a RUL", "a RUL acting as 6LN", a
 "6LN acting as a RUL"...and §10 specifies the behavior of the "6LN/RUL",
 which seems to imply that they are the same, or at least have the same
 functionality...or that one is acting as the other...

 If I understand correctly, the main difference between a RUL and a 6LN (as
 defined in USEofRPLinfo) is that a 6LN connects to the RPL network through a
 LoWPAN, but the RUL may not.  But, as pointed out above, it seems that this
 document (§7) expects the RUL to be a 6LN (support rfc6775/rfc8505...).

 In most cases, the two terms seem to be used interchangeably, but in others,
 a clear distinction is made -- for example in this text from §7.2.1:

   To terminate the IP-in-IP tunnel, the 6LN, as an IPv6 Host, must be able to
   decapsulate the tunneled packet and either drop the inner packet if it is
   not the final destination, or pass it to the upper layer for further
   processing.  Unless it is aware by other means that the RUL can handle
   IP-in-IP properly, which is not mandated by [RFC8504], the Root terminates
   the IP-in-IP tunnel at the parent 6LR.  It is thus not necessary for a RUL
   to support IP-in-IP decapsulation.

 As part of clarifying the expectations for the RUL (from above), please also
 clearly distinguish between the definition of RUL and 6LN...or tell the
 reader how they are (?) considered the same in this document.  Consistency
 and clarity throughout the document is important.

(3) Formal Updates

 Please take a close look at my comments in §4, 5 and 6 about formally
 Updating other documents.  In short, I don't believe that a formal Update is
 necessary for all the changes mentioned in those sections.

 Having said that, I did mention a couple of places where I think rfc6775
 should (also) be Updated...and others for rfc6550 and rfc8505 that were not
 listed.

I expect the resolution of the major issues before moving the document forward.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

P.S.: I noticed too late the GitHub location...I could have at least
included some of the nits as a PR there.  Maybe it would be a good
idea to indicate in the draft and the datatracker when GitHub is being
used. :-)

[Line numbers from idnits.]

...
12	Abstract

14	   This specification extends RFC6550 and RFC8505 to provide routing
15	   services to Hosts called RPL Unaware Leaves that implement 6LoWPAN ND
16	   but do not participate to RPL.  This specification also enables the
17	   RPL Root to proxy the 6LoWPAN keep-alive flows in its DODAG.

[nit] s/participate to/participate in/g

[major] A mention of Updating draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao is
missing in the Abstract.  See also the comments in §5.

...
98	1.  Introduction

[nit] It would be nice to offer a roadmap ("Section x talks about y,
...") in the Introduction...perhaps at the end of the section.

...
113	   To save signaling and routing state in constrained networks, RPL
114	   allows a routing stretch (see [RFC6687]), whereby routing is only
115	   performed along an acyclic graph optimized to reach a Root node, as
116	   opposed to straight along a shortest path between 2 peers, whatever
117	   that would mean in a given LLN.  This trades the quality of peer-to-
118	   peer (P2P) paths for a vastly reduced amount of control traffic and
119	   routing state that would be required to operate a any-to-any shortest
120	   path protocol.  Finally, broken routes may be fixed lazily and on-
121	   demand, based on dataplane inconsistency discovery, which avoids
122	   wasting energy in the proactive repair of unused paths.

[minor] "routing stretch (see [RFC6687])"  The term "routing stretch"
is not in rfc6687...but there are other terms that might be what you
meant.

[nit] s/as opposed to straight along a shortest path between 2 peers,
whatever that would mean in a given LLN./as opposed to along the
shortest path between 2 peers.

[nit] s/a any-to-any /an any-to-any

[] "lazily"  Maybe I'm not getting the proper meaning, but it doesn't
sound good...

...
145	   RPL can be deployed as an extension to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND)
146	   [RFC4861][RFC4862] and 6LoWPAN ND [RFC6775][RFC8505] to maintain
147	   reachability within a Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) subnet.  In
148	   that mode, some nodes may act as Routers and participate to the
149	   forwarding operations whereas others will only terminate packets,
150	   acting as Hosts in the data-plane.  In [RFC6550] terms, a Host that
151	   is reachable over the RPL network is called a Leaf.

[nit] s/][/] [/g

[minor] Do we really need rfc4862 as a reference for IPv6 ND?

[nit] s/operations whereas/operations, whereas

153	   "When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6" [USEofRPLinfo]
154	   introduces the term RPL-Aware-Leaf (RAL) for a Leaf that injects
155	   routes in RPL to manage the reachability of its own IPv6 addresses.
156	   In contrast, the term RPL-Unaware Leaf (RUL) designates a Leaf that
157	   does not participate to RPL at all.  A RUL is an IPv6 Host [RFC8504]
158	   that needs a RPL-Aware Router to obtain routing services over the RPL
159	   network.

[minor] s/"When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6"
[USEofRPLinfo]/"Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header for Source
Routes and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane"
[USEofRPLinfo]

...or perhaps simply [USEofRPLinfo], since there will be an RFC number
by the time we publish.

161	   This specification leverages the Address Registration mechanism
162	   defined in 6LoWPAN ND to enable a RUL as a 6LoWPAN Node (6LN) to
163	   interface with a RPL-Aware Router as a 6LoWPAN Router (6LR) and
164	   request that the 6LR injects a Host route for the Registered Address
165	   in the RPL routing on its behalf.  A RUL may be unable to participate
166	   because it is very energy-constrained, or because it is unsafe to let
167	   it inject routes in RPL, in which case using 6LowPAN ND as the
168	   interface for the RUL limits the surface of the possible attacks and
169	   optionally protects the address ownership.

[major] "unsafe to let it inject routes in RPL"   This is a good topic
to talk about more in the Security Considerations section.

[major] Even if 6LoWPAN ND is used, a rogue router can still inject
instability, or too much control information in the LLN by
adding/removing addresses constantly, for example.  Maybe a risk to be
flagged in the Security Considerations.

...
186	2.1.  BCP 14

[] s/BCP 14/Requirements Language

...
194	2.2.  References
...
202	   "RPL", the "RPL Packet Information" (RPI), "RPL Instance" (indexed by
203	   a RPLInstanceID) are defined in "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
204	   Low-Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6550].  The RPI is the abstract
205	   information that RPL defines to be placed in data packets, e.g., as
206	   the RPL Option [RFC6553] within the IPv6 Hop-By-Hop Header.  By
207	   extension the term "RPI" is often used to refer to the RPL Option
208	   itself.  The DODAG Information solicitation (DIS), Destination
209	   Advertisement Object (DAO) and DODAG Information Object (DIO)
210	   messages are also specified in [RFC6550].  The Destination Cleanup
211	   Object (DCO) message is defined in [EFFICIENT-NPDAO].

[nit] s/By extension/By extension,

213	   This document uses the terms RPL-Unaware Leaf (RUL) and RPL Aware
214	   Leaf (RAL) consistently with [USEofRPLinfo].  The term RPL-Aware Node
215	   (RAN) is introduced to refer to a node that is either an RAL or a RPL
216	   Router.  As opposed to a RUL, a RAN manages the reachability of its
217	   addresses and prefixes by injecting them in RPL by itself.

[a comment for USEofRPLinfo] "consistently with [USEofRPLinfo]"  It
would be nice if USEofRPLinfo referenced this document on the
definition of a RUL, instead of defining it there too.  Yes, that
would mean a Normative dependency.

...
231	   6LoWPAN ND:  Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-Power and Lossy
232	      Networks [RFC6775], "Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN Neighbor
233	      Discovery" [RFC8505], and "Address Protected Neighbor Discovery
234	      for Low-power and Lossy Networks" [AP-ND] .

[nit] s/[AP-ND] ./[AP-ND].

...
337	3.2.1.  R Flag
...
347	   This document specifies how the "R" flag is used in the context of
348	   RPL.  A 6LN is a RUL that requires reachability services for an IPv6
349	   address if and only if it sets the "R" flag in the NS(EARO) used to
350	   register the address to a RPL border router acting as 6LR.  Upon
351	   receiving the NS(EARO), the RPL router generates a DAO message for
352	   the Registered Address if and only if the "R" flag is set.

[nit] "This document specifies..."  Please add a forward reference to
where it is done.

354	3.2.2.  TID, I Field and Opaque Fields

356	   When the "T" flag is set, the EARO includes a sequence counter called
357	   Transaction ID (TID), which maps to the Path Sequence Field found in
358	   the RPL Transit Option.  This is the reason why the support of
359	   [RFC8505] by the RUL as opposed to only [RFC6775] is a prerequisite
360	   for this specification (more in Section 7.1).  The EARO also
361	   transports an Opaque field and an associated "I" field that describes
362	   what the Opaque field transports and how to use it.  Section 10.2.1
363	   specifies the use of the "I" field and of the Opaque field by a RUL.

[nit] "This is the reason..."  What is the reason?  A counter?  It may
not be clear to other readers what you're referring to.

[nit] s/RUL as opposed to only [RFC6775]/RUL, as opposed to only [RFC6775],

[nit] s/and of the/and the

365	3.2.3.  ROVR
...
380	   This specification does not address how the protection by [AP-ND]
381	   could be extended to RPL.  On the other hand, it adds the ROVR to the
382	   DAO to build the proxied EDAR at the Root (see Section 9), which
383	   means that nodes that are aware of the Host route to the 6LN are made
384	   aware of the associated ROVR as well.

[minor] s/extended to RPL/extended (for|to the use of) RPL   ?

386	3.3.  RFC 8505 Extended DAR/DAC

388	   [RFC8505] updates the DAR/DAC messages into the Extended DAR/DAC to
389	   carry the ROVR field.  The EDAR/EDAC exchange takes place between the
390	   6LR and the 6LBR.  It is triggered by an NS(EARO) message from a 6LN
391	   to create, refresh and delete the corresponding state in the 6LBR.
392	   The exchange is protected by the ARQ mechanism specified in 8.2.6 of
393	   [RFC6775], though in an LLN, a duration longer than the RETRANS_TIMER
394	   [RFC4861] of 1 second may be necessary to cover the Turn Around Trip
395	   delay between the 6LR and the 6LBR.

[nit] s/refresh and delete/refresh, and delete

[minor] Expand ARQ on first use, or add it to the Glossary.

...
411	3.3.1.  RFC 7400 Capability Indication Option
...
435	   A 6LR that can provide reachability services for a RUL in a RPL
436	   network as specified in this document SHOULD include a 6CIO in its RA
437	   messages and set the L, P and E flags as prescribed by [RFC8505], see
438	   Section 7.1 for the corresponding behavior of the RUL.

[major] "SHOULD include a 6CIO"  What are the cases where it is ok to
not include the 6CIO?  IOW, why is this behavior not a requirement?

440	4.  Updating RFC 6550

[major] To me, Updating an RFC means that the implementations of that
RFC should also implement this one.  In this case, there would be an
expectation that all RPL nodes would support everything mentioned
here.  Is that what is intended?  Should all the changes in this
section be part of the Update?

Note that Updating is different than simply expecting the nodes that
implement this specification to comply.

[Personal opinion: it seems to me that some of the enhancements make
sense on some nodes, but it is not necessary for all the nodes to
support this specification for it to work.  For example, Figure 5
shows the flow with participation from the 6LR, Root, and 6LBR -- the
other nodes in the LLN don't need to be aware of the changes.]

442	   This document specifies a new behavior whereby a 6LR injects DAO
443	   messages for unicast addresses (see Section 10) and multicast
444	   addresses (see Section 11) on behalf of leaves that are not aware of
445	   RPL.  The RUL addresses are exposed as external targets [RFC6550].
446	   Conforming [USEofRPLinfo], an IP-in-IP encapsulation between the 6LR
447	   and the RPL Root is used to carry the RPL artifacts and remove them
448	   when forwarding outside the RPL domain, e.g., to a RUL.

[minor] s/Conforming [USEofRPLinfo]/Conforming to [USEofRPLinfo]

[] Is there anything in rfc6550 that limits the source of the routing
information in the DAOs?  It seems to me that rfc6550 already allows
external information to be injected in the network...so getting it
from a RUL doesn't sound like an Update to me.

450	   This document also synchronizes the liveness monitoring at the Root
451	   and the 6LBR.  The same value of lifetime is used for both, and a
452	   single keep-alive message, the RPL DAO, traverses the RPL network.  A
453	   new behavior is introduced whereby the RPL Root proxies the EDAR
454	   message to the 6LBR on behalf of the 6LR (more in Section 6), for any
455	   6LN, RUL or RAN.

[] Yes, there's a proxy behavior...but I would see that more as a
change to ND than an Update to rfc6550.

457	   Section 6.7.7 of [RFC6550] introduces RPL Target Option, which can be
458	   used in RPL Control messages such as the DAO message to signal a
459	   destination prefix.  Section 9 adds the capabilities to transport the
460	   ROVR field (see Section 3.2.3) and the IPv6 Address of the prefix
461	   advertiser when the Target is a shorter prefix, signaled by a new "F"
462	   flag.  The position of the "F" flag is indicated in Section 15.

[] §9 says that this change is backward compatible; do we need all RPL
nodes to support it?  See my comment there about requiring (vs
recommending) the use...and about the potential forward compatibility
need to Update...

[] I put a note in §15 about Updading rfc6550 because of the changes
in the registry (which is different than the functionality described
here)...take a look.

[nit] s/introduces RPL Target Option/introduces the RPL Target Option

[minor] "the IPv6 Address of the prefix advertiser when the Target is
a shorter prefix"   I'm confused about this because then the F flag is
set the Target is a full 128 bit address, not a shorter one.  What did
I miss?

464	   Section 6.7.6 of [RFC6550] defines the DODAG Configuration option
465	   with reserved flags.  This specification defines the new "Root
466	   Proxies EDAR/EDAC" (P) flag and encodes it in one of these reserved
467	   flags.  The "P" flag is set to indicate that the Root performs the
468	   proxy operation, which implies that it supports the Updated RPL
469	   Target Option (see Section 9).  The position of the "P" flag is
470	   indicated in Section 14.

[major] The P flag is not defined in §9...or anywhere else.

[] Hard to say if this change is an Update without a specification of
the P flag.

472	   Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in
473	   the DIO Base Object.  The new "P" flag is defined only for MOP value
474	   between 0 to 6.  For a MOP value of 7 or above, the flag MAY be
475	   redefined and MUST NOT be interpreted as "Root Proxies EDAR/EDAC"
476	   unless the specification of the MOP indicates to do so.

[] We have an ongoing discussion about MOPs elsewhere.  For now, I
think that the Update should happen elsewhere.

...but here's a suggestion anyway...

[] NEW>
   Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in the
   DIO Base Object.  This specification of the new "P" flag applies to MOP
   values 0 to 6.

478	   The RPL Status defined in section 6.5.1 of [RFC6550] for use in the
479	   DAO-ACK message is extended to be placed in DCO messages
480	   [EFFICIENT-NPDAO] as well.  Furthermore, this specification enables
481	   to carry the EARO Status defined for 6LoWPAN ND in RPL DAO and DCO
482	   messages, embedded in a RPL Status, more in Section 8.

[major] Besides enabling the EARO status to be carried, §8 also
reduces the size of the status from 8 to 6 bits, with the new
encoding...  This *is* a necessary Update to rfc6550.

[] Note that even though the same RPL Status is used in the DCO
message, a formal Update is not required for EFFICIENT-NPDAO for the
reduction of the size since that document is already inheriting the
Update from rfc6500: "RPL Status: As defined in [RFC6550] and updated
in [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves]."

484	5.  Updating draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao

[major] To me, Updating an RFC means that the implementations of that
RFC should also implement this one.  In this case, there would be an
expectation that all nodes that support the DCO would support the
Non-Storing MOP as well.  Is that what is intended?

Note that Updating is different than simply expecting the nodes that
implement this specification to comply.

[Personal opinion: I don't think a formal Update of
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao is needed.  As mentioned below, this
document "extends"...]

486	   [EFFICIENT-NPDAO] defines the DCO for RPL Storing Mode only, with a
487	   link-local scope.  This specification extends its use to the Non-
488	   Storing MOP, whereby the DCO is sent unicast by the Root directly to
489	   the RAN that injected the DAO message for the considered target.

491	   This specification leverages the DCO between the Root and the 6LR
492	   that serves as attachment router for a RUL.

[] Just another piece of information: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao
already "assumes that all the 6LRs in the network support this
specification".  draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao did not Update
rfc6550, so it is not expected that "basic" RPL nodes would know what
the DCO is...

[major] Regardless of whether this document Updates NPDAO or not, some
text should be added related to the possibility that not all nodes may
know what the DCO is.  See §10.2.3.

494	6.  Updating RFC 8505

[major] To me, Updating an RFC means that the implementations of that
RFC should also implement this one.  In this case, there would be an
expectation that all 6LRs would support the change.  Is that what is
intended?

Note that Updating is different than simply expecting the nodes that
implement this specification to comply...in this case, *if* "the RPL
Root advertise[s] the capability...".

[Personal opinion: rfc8505 applies to 6LRs in general, not just RPL
routers in particular...so I think that Updating it is not the right
choice.]

496	   This document updates [RFC8505] to change the behavior of a RPL
497	   Router acting as 6LR in the 6LoWPAN ND Address Registration of a RUL
498	   acting as 6LN.  If the RPL Root advertise the capability to proxy the
499	   EDAR/EDAC exchange to the 6LBR, the 6LR refrains from sending the
500	   keep-alive EDAR message.  Instead, if it is separated from the 6LBR,
501	   the Root regenerates the EDAR message to the 6LBR periodically, upon
502	   a DAO message that signals the liveliness of the Address.

[nit] s/Root advertise/Root advertises

[] See the comment in §8 about a separate reason to Update rfc8505 and rfc6775.

...
510	7.1.  Support of 6LoWPAN ND

512	   In order to obtain routing services from a 6LR, a RUL MUST implement
513	   [RFC8505] and set the "R" and "T" flags in the EARO.  The RUL SHOULD
514	   support [AP-ND] to protect the ownership of its addresses.  The RUL
515	   MUST NOT request routing services from a 6LR that does not originate
516	   RA messages with a CIO that has the L, P, and E flags all set as
517	   discussed in Section 3.3.1, unless configured to do so.

[major] I may be lost already...  A RUL is by definition RPL-unaware.
It then follows that a RUL can't be assumed to be aware of this
specification, right?  If so, then all the Normative language used in
this section can't be used because we can't specify the behavior of a
node that (by definition) is not aware of this document.  [See more
related comments below.]

Note that §1 defines a RUL this way: "A RUL is an IPv6 Host [RFC8504]
that needs a RPL-Aware Router to obtain routing services over the RPL
network."

[major] "The RUL SHOULD support [AP-ND] to protect the ownership of
its addresses."   When it is ok for the RUL not to support AP-ND?
IOW, why is the support only recommended and not required?

...
523	   Parallel Address Registrations to several 6LRs SHOULD be performed in
524	   an rapid sequence, using the exact same EARO for the same Address.
525	   Gaps between the Address Registrations will invalidate some of the
526	   routes till the Address Registration finally shows on those routes.

[nit] s/an rapid sequence/rapid sequence

[nit] s/the exact same EARO/the same EARO

[major] How fast is in "rapid sequence"...how big can "gaps" be?  If
using Normative language, then the text needs to be specific.

528	   [RFC8505] introduces error Status values in the NA(EARO) which can be
529	   received synchronously upon an NS(EARO) or asynchronously.  The RUL
530	   MUST support both cases and MUST refrain from using the address when
531	   the Status Value indicates a rejection.

[major] "MUST support both cases and MUST refrain"  Isn't this
behavior already specified in rfc8505?  We shouldn't use normative
language in that case (unless you are quoting directly).

[major] I didn't find a "rejection" Status Value.  I'm assuming you're
referring to a group of values: Duplicate Address, Moved, etc..
Please be explicit.

533	7.2.  External Routes and RPL Artifacts

535	   Section 4.1 of [USEofRPLinfo] provides a set of rules detailed below
536	   that MUST be followed for routing packets from and to a RUL.

[major] Because the specification is in USEofRPLinfo already, then
there's no need to normatively require it here as well.  Also, not all
the actions in §4.1/USEofRPLinfo are required, some are just
recommended, so there would be a Normative conflict.   s/MUST/must

...
554	   The RPL data packets always carry a Hop-by-Hop Header to transport a
555	   RPL Packet Information (RPI) [RFC6550].  So unless the RUL originates
556	   its packets with an RPI, the 6LR needs to tunnel them to the Root to
557	   add the RPI.  As a rule of a thumb and except for the very special
558	   case above, the packets from and to a RUL are always encapsulated
559	   using an IP-in-IP tunnel between the Root and the 6LR that serves the
560	   RUL (see sections 7.1.4, 7.2.3, 7.2.4, 7.3.3, 7.3.4, 8.1.3, 8.1.4,
561	   8.2.3, 8.2.4, 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 of [USEofRPLinfo] for details).

[minor] Listing all these sections may be prone to errors or
inconsistency.  What about §7.1.3/§8.3.2?   Maybe simply "see
[USEofRPLinfo] for details" is better.

563	   In Non-Storing Mode, packets going down carry a Source Routing Header
564	   (SRH).  The IP-in-IP encapsulation, the RPI and the SRH are
565	   collectively called the "RPL artifacts" and can be compressed using
566	   [RFC8138].  Figure 10 presents an example compressed format for a
567	   packet forwarded by the Root to a RUL in a Storing Mode DODAG.

[minor] s/Figure 10/Appendix A

...
576	   A RUL is not expected to support the compression method defined in
577	   [RFC8138].  Unless configured otherwise, the border router MUST
578	   restore the outgoing packet before forwarding over an external route,
579	   even if it is not the destination of the incoming packet, and even
580	   when delivering to a RUL.

[minor] s/restore/uncompress

[major] "the border router MUST restore the outgoing packet before
forwarding over an external route, even if it is not the destination
of the incoming packet"

USEofRPLinfo already specifies this behavior, so please don't specify
it again.  Also, the language of "even if it is not the destination"
made me think twice about complying with rfc8200.  Maybe better to
describe the behavior in the same way that USEofRPLinfo does.

Suggestion>
   A RUL is not expected to support the compression method defined in
   [RFC8138].  The border router uncompresses the packet before forwarding
   over an external route to a RUL [USEofRPLinfo].

...
608	8.  Updated RPL Status
...
623	                     Table 1: RPL Status per RFC 6550

[minor] Please add a table (later in this section) showing the updated
RPL Status...along with a forward reference to the IANA Considerations
sub-section where the new registry is created.

[] BTW, this change should formally Update rfc6500.

625	   The 6LoWPAN ND Status was defined for use in the EARO and the
626	   currently defined values are listed in table 1 of [RFC8505].  This
627	   specification enables to carry the 6LoWPAN ND Status values in RPL
628	   DAO and DCO messages, embedded in the RPL Status field.

[minor] "the currently defined values are listed in table 1 of [RFC8505]"

Given that the registry is being modified, and that other values may
be added...it doesn't seem like a good idea to point at "currently
defined values".  Please take out that part of the sentence.

630	   To achieve this, Section 13.2 reduces the range of the EARO Status
631	   values to 0-63 to ensure that they fit within a RPL Status as shown
632	   in Figure 3.

[major] "Section 13.2 reduces the range"

§13.2 is part of the IANA Considerations, which reflects what is
specified elsewhere.  IOW, specify the reduced range elsewhere
(here?).

Suggestion>
   To achieve this, the range of the EARO Status values is reduced to 0-63.
   This reduction ensures that the values fit within a RPL Status as shown in
   Figure 3.

[major] What about the ARO?  The Status values are shared between the
EARO and the ARO.

[major] Changing the range of values is not as easy as updating the
registry...the behavior of the EARO and ARO have to be updated.  This
means that this document should Update both rfc6775 and rfc8505 where
it relates to the redefined Status field.

The E/A flags (below) don't seem to apply to the ARO/EARO, so a
specification of the behavior is needed; something like "ignore the
first two bits".

634	                               0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
635	                              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
636	                              |E|A|  Value    |
637	                              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

...
643	   E:  1-bit flag.  Set to indicate a rejection.  When not set, a value
644	      of 0 indicates Success/Unqualified acceptance and other values
645	      indicate "not an outright rejection" as per RFC 6550.

[minor] "When not set, a value of 0...and other values..."  This is
just one bit, so there are only two values, not "other values". ;-)
You obviously mean "a value of 0...and other values of the RPL
Status".

s/a value of 0/an RPL Status value of 0

[major] ""not an outright rejection" as per RFC 6550"  rfc6550
differentiated between a "rejection" and "not an outright rejection".
Is the intent for the rejection codes to reflect that difference (at
some point), or is the ability to signal the difference lost?

...
649	   Status Value:  6-bit unsigned integer.  If the 'A' flag is set this
650	      field transports a Status Value defined for IPv6 ND EARO.  When
651	      the 'A' flag is not set, the Status Value is defined for RPL.

[major] This change in the RPL Status format should be a formal Update
of rfc6550.

653	   When building a DCO or a DAO-ACK message upon an IPv6 ND NA or a EDAC
654	   message, the RPL Root MUST copy the 6LoWPAN ND Status unchanged in
655	   the RPL Status and set the 'A' bit.  The RPL Root MUST set the 'E'
656	   flag for Values in range 1-10 which are all considered rejections.

[nit] s/'A' bit/'A' flag

[major] What should the receiver do if the corresponding 6LoWPAN ND
Status is unknown?  Or does it matter?  I'm wondering if "MUST" is the
right requirement, or if should be "SHOULD"...

[major] What should a receiver do if the E flag is not set for "Values
in range 1-10"?

[major] For future rejection-related values, the E flag has to also be
set, right?  How can we word the specification so that we don't depend
on future specification saying that the E flag has to be set?  I worry
that not all the status codes use the work "rejection", even if their
description (rfc8505) can be interpreted as such.  Maybe something
like this:

   The RPL Root MUST set the 'E' flag for all rejection Values.  The Status
   Codes in range 1-10 [rfc8505] are all considered rejections.

658	   Reciprocally, upon a DCO or a DAO-ACK message from the RPL Root with
659	   a RPL Status that has the 'A' bit set, the 6LR MUST copy the RPL
660	   Status Value unchanged in the Status field of the EARO when
661	   generating an NA to the RUL.

[major] "MUST copy the RPL Status Value unchanged"   Even if the value
is unknown?

663	9.  Updated RPL Target Option
...
679	   With this specification the ROVR is the remainder of the RPL Target
680	   Option.  The size of the ROVR is indicated in a new ROVR Size field
681	   that is encoded to map one-to-one with the Code Suffix in the EDAR
682	   message (see table 4 of [RFC8505]).

[nit] "ROVR Size field"   The field is called ROVRsz.  To be
consistent, perhaps describe the field (below) as "ROVRsz (ROVR
Size):"

[?] Why is the size of the ROVR needed?  It can be figured out from
the setting of the F flag and the Option and Prefix Lengths.  Just
curious.

684	   The modified format is illustrated in Figure 4.  It is backward
685	   compatible with the Target Option in [RFC6550] and SHOULD be used as
686	   a replacement in new implementations even for Storing Mode operations
687	   in preparation for upcoming security mechanisms based in the ROVR.

[nit] s/modified format/updated format

[nit] s/based in/based on

[major] "It is backward compatible..."

True, but what about "forward" compatible?  If the F flag is not set,
how does a receiver know that this is the updated Option?  Is there a
chance of spurious information (in either the flag or the ROVRsz) to
be present and cause the receiver to misinterpret the information?  I
know that rfc6550 specifies that the "field MUST be initialized to
zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver"...but I just
want to test the edges.

This forward compatibility may be a reason to formally Update rfc6550.

[major] "SHOULD be used as a replacement in new implementations"

Referring to §4 (Updating RFC 6550) and my comments there about
Updating... If this change is an Update -- meaning that all RPL nodes
must support it --, when would it be ok to not use it?  IOW, why is it
a recommendation and not a requirement.

OTOH, the modification is backwards compatible...so only the nodes
that need to understand the change need to implement it.

[major] "...in preparation for upcoming security mechanisms"

What it that?  If support is required for a different specification,
what is it?   It seems to me that recommending the use in preparation
for something in the future is not appropriate in a specification
without an explicit reference.

689	      0                   1                   2                   3
690	      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
691	      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
692	      |   Type = 0x05 | Option Length |ROVRsz |F|Flags| Prefix Length |
693	      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
694	      |                                                               |
695	      |                Target Prefix (Variable Length)                |
696	      .                                                               .
697	      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
698	      |                                                               |
699	     ...            Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR)           ...
700	      |                                                               |
701	      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

703	                      Figure 4: Updated Target Option

[nit] Align the bit numbers:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

705	   New fields:

707	   ROVRsz:  Indicates the Size of the ROVR.  It MAY be 1, 2, 3, or 4,
708	      denoting a ROVR size of 64, 128, 192, or 256 bits, respectively.

[major] s/MAY be 1, 2, 3, or 4/MUST be 1, 2, 3, or 4

It is not optional to use those values, they are the only ones.

[?] Why are 4 bits needed if there are only 4 values?  Why not just use 3?

[major] What should the receiver do if a different value is used?

710	   F:  1-bit flag.  Set to indicate that Target Prefix field contains an
711	      Address of prefix advertiser in full.

[minor] To be in sync with the Registry in §15:
s/F:/F (Advertiser Address in Full):

...
716	10.  Protocol Operations for Unicast Addresses

718	   The description below assumes that the Root sets the "P" flag in the
719	   DODAG Configuration Option and performs the EDAR proxy operation.

[major] Where is the "P" flag defined?  I didn't find it in this draft.

...
726	10.1.  General Flow

[minor] It would be very nice if at the start of this sub-section a
note mentioned the fact that §10.2 contains the detailed operation.
That would help the linear reader (like me!) time in trying to figure
out the details. ;-)

[minor] Also, it would be great if this overview had forward
references to where the detail is provided.

...
775	   On the first Address Registration, illustrated in Figure 5 for RPL
776	   Non-Storing Mode, the Extended Duplicate Address exchange takes place
777	   as prescribed by [RFC8505].  If the exchange fails, the 6LR returns
778	   an NA message with a negative status to the 6LN, the NCE is not
779	   created and the address is not injected in RPL.  If it is successful,
780	   the 6LR creates an NCE and injects the Registered Address in the RPL
781	   routing using a DAO/DAO-ACK exchange with the RPL DODAG Root.

[major] "the Extended Duplicate Address exchange takes place as
prescribed by [RFC8505]"   Yes, except that NA is delayed until after
the RPL registration is completed.  (See related comments in §10.2.2
below.)

[nit] s/created and/created, and

783	   An issue may be detected later, e.g., the address moves within the
784	   LLN or to a different Root on a backbone [6BBR].  In that case the
785	   value of the status that indicates the issue can be passed from
786	   6LoWPAN ND to RPL and back as illustrated in Figure 6.

[minor] "backbone router" is not used anywhere else.  Do we need to
introduce this term and reference here?  It seems like an unnecessary
reference to me.

[nit] s/In that case/In that case,

[nit] s/back as/back, as

...
800	   An Address re-Registration is performed by the 6LN to maintain the
801	   NCE in the 6LR alive before lifetime expires.  Upon the refresh of an
802	   Address re-Registration, as illustrated in Figure 7, the 6LR injects
803	   the Registered Address in RPL.

[nit] s/before lifetime/before the lifetime

[major] Under what circumstances does the process in Figure 7 apply?
I'm assuming that only if the registration hasn't expired, is that
true?  If the registration already expired, should the whole process
(Figure 5) be repeated?  I see mention of (re)registration in §10.2.1,
but none in §10.2.2.

805	          6LN/RUL            6LR            Root               6LBR
806	             |                |              |                   |
807	             |   NS(EARO)     |              |                   |
808	             |--------------->|                                  |
809	             |                |      DAO     |                   |
810	             |                |------------->|                   |
811	             |                |              |       EDAR        |
812	             |                |              |------------------>|
813	             |                |              |       EDAC        |
814	             |                |              |<------------------|
815	             |                |    DAO-ACK   |                   |
816	             |                |<-------------|                   |
817	             |   NA(EARO)     |              |                   |
818	             |<---------------|              |                   |

[nit] A "|" is missing under the Root.

...
828	   The 6LR may receive a requested DAO-ACK after it received an
829	   asynchronous DCO, but the negative Status in the DCO supersedes a
830	   positive Status in the DAO-ACK regardless of the order in which they
831	   are received.  Upon the DAO-ACK - or the DCO if one arrives first -
832	   the 6LR responds to the RUL with an NA(EARO).

[major] "the negative Status in the DCO supersedes a positive Status
in the DAO-ACK regardless of the order in which they are received"

I don't remember anything like this in
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao.  Should something be mentioned?  The
ability of a parent to send an unsolicited DCO seems to fall in the
same category: the DAO-ACK doesn't matter if the DCO was received
first...

I'm assuming the DCO negative status in this case has some type of
expiration time, right?  I'm thinking of the case where a problem did
occur, but on a retry there is success...??

This property of the DCO allows a rogue node to invalidate a
registration.  Something similar to this text from
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao should be included in the Security
Considerations section:

   This document introduces the ability for a common ancestor node to
   invalidate a route on behalf of the target node.  The common ancestor
   node could be directed to do so by the target node using the 'I' flag
   in DCO's Transit Information Option.  However, the common ancestor
   node is in a position to unilaterally initiate the route invalidation
   since it possesses all the required state information, namely, the
   Target address and the corresponding Path Sequence.  Thus a rogue
   common ancestor node could initiate such an invalidation and impact
   the traffic to the target node.

834	   The RUL MAY terminate the registration at any time by using a
835	   Registration Lifetime of 0.  This specification requires that the RPL
836	   Target Option transports the ROVR.  This way, the same flow as the
837	   heartbeat flow is sufficient to inform the 6LBR using the Root as
838	   proxy as illustrated in Figure 7.

[major] s/MAY/may   In this case, the sentence is just pointing at a
fact, not making a normative statement.

[nit] s/proxy as/proxy, as

840	   Any combination of the logical functions of 6LR, Root and 6LBR might
841	   be collapsed in a single node.

[nit] s/Root and/Root, and

843	10.2.  Detailed Operation

845	10.2.1.  Perspective of the RUL Acting as 6LN

847	   This specification does not alter the operation of a 6LoWPAN ND-
848	   compliant 6LN, and a RUL is expected to operate as follows:

[minor] s/6LN, and a RUL /6LN/RUL, which

850	   1.  The 6LN obtains an IPv6 global address, either using Stateless
851	       Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862] based on a Prefix
852	       Information Option (PIO) [RFC4861] found in an RA message, or
853	       some other means such as DHCPv6 [RFC3315].

[nit] s/means such/means, such

[major] s/RFC3315/RFC8415

855	   2.  Once it has formed an address, the 6LN (re)registers its address
856	       periodically, within the Lifetime of the previous Address
857	       Registration, as prescribed by [RFC6775], to refresh the NCE
858	       before the lifetime indicated in the EARO expires.  It MUST set
859	       the "T" flag and the TID is incremented each time and wraps in a
860	       lollipop fashion (see section 5.2.1 of [RFC8505] which is fully
861	       compatible with section 7.2 of [RFC6550]).

[minor] s/It MUST set the "T" flag and the TID is incremented/It MUST
set the "T" flag.  The TID is incremented

[nit] s/[RFC8505] which/[RFC8505], which

863	   3.  As stated in section 5.2 of [RFC8505], the 6LN can register to
864	       more than one 6LR at the same time.  In that case, it uses the
865	       same EARO for all of the parallel Address Registrations.  The 6LN
866	       SHOULD send the registration(s) that have a non-zero Registration
867	       Lifetime and ensure that one succeeds before it terminates other
868	       registrations, to maintain the state in the network and at the
869	       6LBR and minimize the churn.

[major] "The 6LN SHOULD send the registration(s) that have a non-zero
Registration Lifetime..."

It sounds as if you're trying to specify what the value of the
Registration Lifetime should be.  If so: s/that have a non-zero/with a
non-zero

What are the cases when it is ok to not use a non-zero value?  IOW,
why is it recommended and not required?  rfc8505 talks about setting
the Registration Lifetime to 0, which brings me to: it seems to me
that the Normative language may be out of place since the
specification is already made in rfc8505.  ??

871	   4.  Following section 5.1 of [RFC8505], a 6LN acting as a RUL sets
872	       the "R" flag in the EARO of at least one registration, whereas
873	       acting as a RAN it never does.  If the "R" flag is not echoed in
874	       the NA, the RUL SHOULD attempt to use another 6LR.  The RUL
875	       SHOULD send the registration(s) with the "R" flag set and ensure
876	       that one succeeds before it sends the registrations with the flag
877	       reset.  In case of a conflict with the preceeding rule on
878	       lifetime, the rule on lifetime has precedence.

[nit] "6LN acting as a RUL"  The title of this section is "Perspective
of the RUL Acting as 6LN", which one is it? ;-)

[minor] "whereas acting as a RAN it never does"   rfc8505 says this:
"A 6LR that manages its reachability SHOULD NOT set the R flag".
"SHOULD NOT" doesn't imply never.

[minor] "If the "R" flag is not echoed in the NA..."  I didn't find in
rfc8505 where echoing the R flag is discussed.  But §10.2.2 requires
the R flag set...is that where the specification is?

[major] "SHOULD send the registration(s) with the "R" flag set and
ensure that one succeeds before it sends the registrations with the
flag reset."

This text is in conflict with §5.1/rfc8505: "MUST set the R flag to
indicate that it is not a router and that it will not handle its own
reachability".  There isn't a provision for a RUL to not set the R
flag.

[nit] s/preceeding/preceding

880	   5.  The 6LN may use any of the 6LRs to which it registered as default
881	       gateway.  Using a 6LR to which the 6LN is not registered may
882	       result in packets dropped at the 6LR by a Source Address
883	       Validation function (SAVI) so it is NOT RECOMMENDED.

[nit] s/as default/as the default

[minor] Please add an Informative reference to SAVI.

[major] s/NOT RECOMMENDED/not recommended
This text is not specifying normative behavior related to interoperability.

885	   Even without support for RPL, a RUL may be aware of opaque values to
886	   be provided to the routing protocol.  If the RUL has a knowledge of
887	   the RPL Instance the packet should be injected into, then it SHOULD
888	   set the Opaque field in the EARO to the RPLInstanceID, else it MUST
889	   leave the Opaque field to zero.

[nit] s/has a knowledge/has knowledge

[major] If a RUL is *unaware* by definition, I don't see how this
paragraph can fit in this specification...especially because it seems
to be speculating about potential knowledge ("may be aware of opaque
values")...  What do we call a RUL that has partial knowledge?

891	   Regardless of the setting of the Opaque field, the 6LN MUST set the
892	   "I" field to zero to signal "topological information to be passed to
893	   a routing process" as specified in section 5.1 of [RFC8505].

[nit] s/process" as/process", as

895	   A RUL is not expected to produce RPL artifacts in the data packets,
896	   but it MAY do so.  For instance, if the RUL has a minimal awareness
897	   of the RPL Instance then it can build an RPI.  A RUL that places an
898	   RPI in a data packet MUST indicate the RPLInstanceID of the RPL
899	   Instance where the packet should be forwarded.  All the flags and the
900	   Rank field are set to zero as specified by section 11.2 of [RFC6550].

[major] s/MAY/may   In this case, the text is just expressing a fact,
not a Normative action.

[nit] s/has a minimal/has minimal

[major] The Normative text in this paragraph is equivalent to the one
above (two paragraphs up)...please avoid duplication/redundancy.

[major] "A RUL that places an RPI in a data packet MUST indicate the
RPLInstanceID of the RPL Instance where the packet should be
forwarded."

So...even if we leave the *unaware* nature of a RUL out...this text
means that any leaf can inject traffic onto an RPL Instance, just by
knowing the ID (or even guessing it).  Please add some text in the
Security Considerations about how the rfc6553 considerations apply
here too.

902	10.2.2.  Perspective of the Border Router Acting as 6LR

[nit] How else would a Border Router act as?

[] This terminology of "acting as" is confusing... <sigh>

904	   Also as prescribed by [RFC8505], the 6LR generates an EDAR message
905	   upon reception of a valid NS(EARO) message for the registration of a
906	   new IPv6 Address by a 6LN.  If the initial EDAR/EDAC exchange
907	   succeeds, then the 6LR installs an NCE for the Registration Lifetime.
908	   For the registration refreshes, if the RPL Root has indicated that it
909	   proxies the keep-alive EDAR/EDAC exchange with the 6LBR (see
910	   Section 4), the 6LR MUST refrain from sending the keep-alive EDAR.

[nit] s/Also as prescribed/As prescribed

912	   If the "R" flag is set in the NS(EARO), the 6LR MUST inject the Host
913	   route in RPL, unless this is barred for other reasons, such as the
914	   saturation of the RPL parents.  The 6LR MUST use a RPL Non-Storing
915	   Mode signaling and the updated Target Option (see Section 9).  The
916	   6LR MUST request a DAO-ACK by setting the 'K' flag in the DAO
917	   message.  Success injecting the route to the RUL is indicated by the
918	   'E' flag set to 0 in the RPL status of the DAO-ACK message.

[major] What is "the Host route"?  I guess you mean a "host route to
the Registered Address contained in the EDAC".  Or, as you mention
later, "router to the RUL".

[major] "MUST...unless"   The use of MUST implies no exceptions.   s/MUST/SHOULD

920	   The Opaque field in the EARO hints the 6LR on the RPL Instance that
921	   SHOULD be used for the DAO advertisements, and for the forwarding of
922	   packets sourced at the registered address when there is no RPI in the
923	   packet, in which case the 6LR MUST encapsulate the packet to the Root
924	   adding an RPI in the outer header.  If the Opaque field is zero, the
925	   6LR is free to use the default RPL Instance (zero) for the registered
926	   address or to select an Instance of its choice.

[major] "hints"   It is really a hint, or the RPL Instance?  If only a
hint, where would the Instance that "SHOULD be used" come from?  The
text in §10.2.1 implies that the 6LN knows what the Instance is.

[major] "the RPL Instance that SHOULD be used for the DAO advertisements"

When would the 6LR not use the Instance signaled by the 6LN?  IOW, why
is this a recommendation and not a requirement?

[nit] s/and for the/and the

[major] "SHOULD be used for...forwarding...in which case the 6LR MUST
encapsulate the packet to the Root adding an RPI in the outer header"

There's a Normative conflict between recommending the use of the
RPLInstanceID and requiring the use of the RPI (which contains the
RPLInstanceID).

[minor] How is the 6LR to "select an Instance of its choice"?
§11.2/rfc6550 talks specifically about the need for guidance for
external packets:

   The definition and provisioning of RPL Instances are out of scope for
   this specification.  Guidelines may be application and implementation
   specific, and they are expected to be elaborated in future companion
   specifications.  Those operations are expected to be such that data
   packets coming from the outside of the RPL network can unambiguously
   be associated to at least one RPL Instance and be safely routed over
   any instance that would match the packet.

928	   If the "I" field is not zero, then the 6LR MUST consider that the
929	   Opaque field is zero.  If the Opaque field is not zero, then it is
930	   expected to carry a RPLInstanceID for the RPL Instance suggested by
931	   the 6LN.  If the 6LR does not participate to the associated Instance,
932	   then the 6LR MUST consider that the Opaque field is zero; else, that
933	   is if the 6LR participates to the suggested RPL Instance, then the
934	   6LR SHOULD use that Instance for the Registered Address.

[nit] There is some redundancy/repetition between this paragraph and
the last one.

[major] "If the "I" field is not zero, then the 6LR MUST consider that
the Opaque field is zero."

rfc8505 already specifies pretty much the same thing.

OLD>
   If the "I" field is not zero, then the 6LR MUST consider that the
   Opaque field is zero.  If the Opaque field is not zero, then it is
   expected to carry a RPLInstanceID for the RPL Instance suggested by
   the 6LN.

NEW>
   As described in rfc8505, if the "I" field is zero, then the Opaque field
   is expected to carry the RPLInstanceID suggested by the 6LN.  Otherwise,
   the Opaque field is ignored.

[nit] s/participate to the/participate in the

...
939	   1.  The Registered Address is signaled as Target Prefix in the
940	       updated Target Option in the DAO message; the Prefix Length is
941	       set to 128.  The ROVR field is copied unchanged from the EARO
942	       (see Section 9).

[nit] s/as Target Prefix/as the Target Prefix

[minor] "Prefix Length is set to 128" ...and the F flag is set.

...
948	   3.  The 6LR sets the External 'E' flag in the TIO to indicate that it
949	       redistributes an external target into the RPL network

[nit] s/it redistributes/it is redistributing

951	   4.  the Path Lifetime in the TIO is computed from the Lifetime in the
952	       EARO Option.  This adapts it to the Lifetime Units used in the
953	       RPL operation; note that if the lifetime is 0, then the DAO
954	       message is a No-Path DAO that cleans up the the routes down to
955	       the RUL; this also causes the Root as a proxy to send an EDAR
956	       message to the 6LBR with a Lifetime of 0.

[minor] s/Lifetime/Registration Lifetime

[minor] "Path Lifetime in the TIO is computed"  How?  Given that the
Registration Lifetime is in seconds, but the Lifetime Unit can be in
days, there may be cases where the result is close to 0.  Would that
result in an NPDAO?

[nit] s/the the/the

...
961	   Upon receiving the DAO-ACK or an asynchronous DCO message, the 6LR
962	   MUST send the NA(EARO) to the RUL.

[major] "Upon receiving the DAO-ACK ...the 6LR MUST send the NA(EARO)".

My interpretation is that the 6LR will wait for the DAO-ACK before
sending the NA(EARO), is that correct?

§9.3/rfc6550:

   4.  A node receiving a unicast DAO message with the 'K' flag set
       SHOULD respond with a DAO-ACK.  A node receiving a DAO message
       without the 'K' flag set MAY respond with a DAO-ACK, especially
       to report an error condition.

   5.  A node that sets the 'K' flag in a unicast DAO message but does
       not receive a DAO-ACK in response MAY reschedule the DAO message
       transmission for another attempt, up until an implementation-
       specific number of retries.

This text says that the 6LR may never receive a DAO-ACK.  If that
happens (even after trying again), what should the 6LR do?   During
this time the RUL is waiting for the NS(EARO)...

964	   The 6LR MUST set "R" flag in the NA(EARO) back if and only if the 'E'
965	   flag is reset, indicating that the 6LR injected the Registered
966	   Address in the RPL routing successfully and that the EDAR proxy
967	   operation succeeded.

[nit] s/set "R"/set the "R"

969	   If the 'A' flag in the RPL Status is set, the embedded Status Value
970	   is passed back to the RUL in the EARO Status.  If the 'E' flags is
971	   also set, the registration failed for 6LoWPAN ND related reasons, and
972	   the NCE is removed.

[nit] s/'E' flags/'E' flag

974	   If the 'A' flag is not set in the RPL Status of the DAO-ACK, then the
975	   6LoWPAN ND operation succeeded and an EARO Status of 0 (Success) MUST
976	   be returned to the RUL, even if the 'E' flag is set in the RPL
977	   Status.  The EARO Status of 0 MUST also be used if the 6LR could not
978	   even try to inject the route.

[major] "If the 'A' flag is not set in the RPL Status of the DAO-ACK,
then the 6LoWPAN ND operation succeeded..."

§8 says this: "the RPL Root MUST copy the 6LoWPAN ND Status unchanged
in the RPL Status and set the 'A' bit"   This means that if the A flag
is not set then the Root didn't comply with the MUST in §8...or that
it did not copy result from the EDAC...which then means that the
DAO-ACK is not valid.  What am I missing?

[nit] s/succeeded and/succeeded, and

[major] "even if the 'E' flag is set"   Sorry, what?  The E flag
indicates a rejection...  I thought I understood the logic (in §8) of
setting the A/E flags...but it seems that I didn't.  It would be ideal
to then be explicit about the different combinations and how we can
get to them.

980	   This means that, in case of an error injecting the route that is not
981	   related to ND, the registration succeeds but the RPL route is not
982	   installed, which is signaled by the "R" flag reset.  It is up to the
983	   6LN to keep the binding with the 6LR or destroy it.

[nit] s/succeeds but/succeeds, but

[major] Figure 5 seems to indicate that the DAO-ACK is generated when
the EDAC is received, which is inline with the specification in §8
("the RPL Root MUST copy the 6LoWPAN ND Status unchanged in the RPL
Status and set the 'A' bit")...but from the last few paragraphs it
seems that there are other reasons for generating the DAO-ACK.  While
not clear from the Figure, §10.2.3 does hint by saying "if a DAO is
pending"...  Again, I think that this part of the operation has to be
much more explicit.

rfc6550 has no information about "pending" DAOs, or how fast the
DAO-ACK is to be sent.  In fact, there is no firm requirement for the
DAO-ACK to exist, just hope that it does:

- §6.4/rfc6550: "The DAO message may optionally, upon explicit request or
  error, be acknowledged by its destination with a Destination Advertisement
  Acknowledgement (DAO-ACK) message back to the sender of the DAO."

This sentence suggests that the DAO-ACK is optional, even if
requested, and §9.3/rfc6550 supports that:

"  3.  A node MAY set the 'K' flag in a unicast DAO message to solicit a
       unicast DAO-ACK in response in order to confirm the attempt.

   4.  A node receiving a unicast DAO message with the 'K' flag set
       SHOULD respond with a DAO-ACK.  A node receiving a DAO message
       without the 'K' flag set MAY respond with a DAO-ACK, especially
       to report an error condition.
"

Note that "SHOULD respond with a DAO-ACK" leaves the door open to not
doing it.  Unfortunately rfc6550 didn't explicitly mention what may be
the reasons to not send a DAO-ACK (or not using MUST instead).

In summary, there doesn't seem to be a guarantee that a DAO-ACK will
be received...which means that the 6LN may be left waiting for a
response to the registration (the same issues appears to be present
for a re-registration).

985	   In a network where Address Protected Neighbor Discovery (AP-ND) is
986	   enabled, in case of a DAO-ACK or a DCO indicating transporting an
987	   EARO Status Value of 5 (Validation Requested), the 6LR MUST challenge
988	   the 6LN for ownership of the address, as described in section 6.1 of
989	   [AP-ND], before the Registration is complete.  This ensures that the
990	   address is validated before it is injected in the RPL routing.

[major maybe] "network where...(AP-ND) is enabled"  Just to make sure
I'm understanding: the network itself is not enabled for AP-ND, but
the important nodes (6LN, 6LR, Root and 6LBR) are.  IOW, RPL only
carries the EARO status values that result from the AP-ND operation.
If this true?

Also, the only reason the EARO Status Value would be 5 is if the 6LN
already supports AP-ND, right?  I'm asking this because of the "MUST
challenge" above, and §7.1 saying that the "RUL SHOULD support
[AP-ND]" (recommended, not required).

If my understanding is correct, then the text as is looks fine. :-)

992	   If the challenge succeeds then the operations continue as normal.  In
993	   particular a DAO message is generated upon the NS(EARO) that proves
994	   the ownership of the address.  If the challenge failed, the 6LR
995	   rejects the registration as prescribed by AP-ND and may take actions
996	   to protect itself against DoS attacks by a rogue 6LN, see Section 12.

[nit] s/succeeds then the operations continue/succeeds, then the
operation continues

[nit] s/particular/particular,

[minor] "a DAO message is generated upon the NS(EARO) that proves the
ownership of the address"

It would be very nice is a new figure was included (either here or in
§10.1) to show this updated flow.

998	   The 6LR may at any time send a unicast asynchronous NA(EARO) with the
999	   "R" flag reset to signal that it stops providing routing services,
1000	   and/or with the EARO Status 2 "Neighbor Cache full" to signal that it
1001	   removes the NCE.  It may also send a final RA, unicast or multicast,
1002	   with a Router Lifetime field of zero, to signal that it stops serving
1003	   as router, as specified in section 6.2.5 of [RFC4861].

[minor] What are the RPL actions that should take place?  For example,
if the 6LR "stops providing routing services" to a specific 6LN, but
still acts as a router for others...should it also send an NPDAO/DCO
to remove the routing state?  Is there a reference somewhere about how
a RPL router gracefully "stops serving as router"?

1005	   If a 6LR receives a valid NS(EARO) message with the "R" flag reset
1006	   and a Registration Lifetime that is not 0, and the 6LR was injecting
1007	   the Registered Address due to previous NS(EARO) messages with the "R"
1008	   flag set, then the 6LR MUST stop injecting the address.  It is up to
1009	   the Registering 6LN to maintain the corresponding route from then on,
1010	   either keeping it active via a different 6LR or by acting as a RAN
1011	   and managing its own reachability.

[major] "MUST stop injecting the address"  Can you be more specific?
What does this mean in RPL terms?  Send an NPDAO/DCO?

1013	10.2.3.  Perspective of the RPL Root

1015	   A RPL Root SHOULD set the "P" flag in the RPL DODAG Configuration
1016	   Option of the DIO messages that it generates (see Section 4) to
1017	   signal that it proxies the EDAR/EDAC exchange and supports the
1018	   Updated RPL Target option.  The remainder of this section assumes
1019	   that it does.

[major] If the Root supports the functionality, when would it be ok
for it to not set the P flag?  IOW, why is it recommended and not
required?  [Note that I may be missing context because there is no
specification for that flag.]

1021	   Upon reception of a DAO message, for each updated RPL Target Option
1022	   (see Section 9) that creates or updates an existing RPL state, the
1023	   Root MUST notify the 6LBR.  This can be done using an internal API if
1024	   they are integrated, or using a proxied EDAR/EDAC exchange if they
1025	   are separate entities.

[major nit] "MUST notify the 6LBR.  This can be done..."   I'm not too
happy with the wording as it seems to provide options to a
requirement...

Suggestion>
   The Root MUST notify the 6LBR by using a proxied EDAR/EDAC exchange if
   they are separate entities.  If the RPL Root and 6LBR are integrated,
   then an internal API can be used.

...
1043	   Upon receiving an EDAC message from the 6LBR, if a DAO is pending,
1044	   then the Root MUST send a DAO-ACK back to the 6LR.  Else, if the
1045	   Status in the EDAC message is not "Success", then it MUST send an
1046	   asynchronous DCO to the 6LR.

[?] "if a DAO is pending"  Even though rfc6550 doesn't talk about
"pending", I take this to mean that the DAO hasn't been ack'd.  Just
wondering (because I couldn't find it in rfc6550), is there a timer
that defines the time between receiving the DAO and sending a DAO-ACK.
I'm also wondering about it since sending a DAO-ACK is only
recommended.

[major] What if the EDAC message is not received?  Should the Root
signal a failure?  What if the EDAC message comes in after a failure
is signaled?  This should presumably not happen, especially since the
6LN already registered...but I'm worried about the timing.

[major] Some text should be added related to the possibility that not
all nodes may know what the DCO is.

Suggestion (borrowing from §4.6.2/EFFICIENT-NPDAO)>
   This document assumes that all the 6LRs in the network support this
   specification.  If there are 6LRs in the DCO message path which do not
   support this document, then the issue indication may not reach the 6LR.
   Alternatively, the Root could...

I stopped there because the text above says that the Root "MUST send
an asynchronous DCO".

...
1059	11.  Protocol Operations for Multicast Addresses
...
1068	   "Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6" [RFC2710] and its
1069	   updated version "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for
1070	   IPv6" [RFC3810] provide an interface for a listener to register to
1071	   multicast flows.  MLDv2 is backwards compatible with MLD, and adds in
1072	   particular the capability to filter the sources via black lists and
1073	   white lists.  In the MLD model, the Router is a "querier" and the
1074	   Host is a multicast listener that registers to the querier to obtain
1075	   copies of the particular flows it is interested in.

[nit] s/backwards/backward

[nit] s/"querier" and/"querier", and

[major] In general, the text talks about an "MLD listener/querier" --
are you using "MLD" to indicate support for both rfc2710/rfc3810, or
are you assuming MLDv1 support only?  The phrase "MLDv2 is backwards
compatible with MLD" is what is confusing me.

I also ask because the pim WG has an ongoing discussion about
deprecating MLDv1.  I am assuming MLDv2, which is what rfc8504
requires.  If so, let's focus on rfc3810.

[-] s/capability to filter the sources via black lists and white
lists/support for source filtering

That is the language used in rfc3810.

1077	   On the first Address Registration, as illustrated in Figure 8, the
1078	   6LN, as an MLD listener, sends an unsolicited Report to the 6LR in
1079	   order to start receiving the flow immediately.

[minor] "On the first Address Registration..."  Do you mean when the
6LN registers its own address (Figure 5)?   I would assume you're
talking about when the 6LN decides to listen to multicast; maybe
reword...

1081	      6LN/RUL                6LR             Root                6LBR
1082	         |                    |               |                    |
1083	         | unsolicited Report |               |                    |
1084	         |------------------->|               |                    |
1085	         |     <L2 ack>       |               |                    |

[] See the comment below about the L2 ack.  This same phrase shows up
in Figure 9 later on...

1086	         |                    | DAO           |                    |
1087	         |                    |-------------->|                    |
1088	         |                    |    DAO-ACK    |                    |
1089	         |                    |<--------------|                    |
1090	         |                    |               | <if not listening> |

[minor] "if not listening"  Even if the 6LBR is listening, the Report
should be unsolicited, right?  I'm not sure what this phrase means...

...
1097	   Since multicast Layer-2 messages are avoided, it is important that
1098	   the asynchronous messages for unsolicited Report and Done are sent
1099	   reliably, for instance using a Layer-2 acknowledgment, or attempted
1100	   multiple times.

[major] The lack of reliable transmission is already addressed in
rfc3810.  What concerns me about the text is the suggestion that a
different (L2 ack) mechanism can be used for MLD without any
specifics.

1102	   The 6LR acts as a generic MLD querier and generates a DAO for the
1103	   multicast target.  The lifetime of the DAO is set to be in the order
1104	   of the Query Interval, yet larger to account for variable propagation
1105	   delays.

[minor] s/multicast target/Multicast Address in the Report message

[major] "generates a DAO for the multicast target"   This document is
a standards track specification...we need to be more explicit.  I'm
assuming that the Multicast Address is included as the Target Prefix
in the Target Option...

[major] One Multicast Address per DAO?  I think I saw a related
discussion on the list recently.

[major] "lifetime of the DAO"  The Path Lifetime?

[major] "lifetime...is set to be in the order of the Query Interval,
yet larger..."  How much is that?  Double?  Just a few seconds more?
ms?

...
1111	   Upon a DAO with a multicast target, the RPL Root checks if it is
1112	   already registered as a listener for that address, and if not, it
1113	   performs its own unsolicited Report for the multicast target.

[major] As above, please be specific.  How is the DAO information used
to build a Query?

1115	   An Address re-Registration is pulled periodically by 6LR acting as
1116	   querier.  Note that the message may be sent unicast to all the known
1117	   individual listeners.

[major] In MLDv2 that is called a Query...

[nit] s/by 6LR/by the 6LR

[major] "message may be sent unicast to all the known individual
listeners"  The first paragraph in this section says that "the
multicast packet is passed as a Layer-2 unicast to each of the
interested children", so there is no other option, right?

...
1144	   Note that any of the functions 6LR, Root and 6LBR might be collapsed
1145	   in a single node, in which case the flow above happens internally,
1146	   and possibly through internal API calls as opposed to messaging.

[nit] s/Root and/Root, and

1148	12.  Security Considerations

1150	   First of all, it is worth noting that with [RFC6550], every node in
1151	   the LLN is RPL-aware and can inject any RPL-based attack in the
1152	   network.  This specification isolates edge nodes that can only
1153	   interact with the RPL routers using 6LoWPAN ND, meaning that they
1154	   cannot perform RPL insider attacks.

[nit] s/First of all, it/I

[major] Because 6LoWPAN ND is used, please add text about the Security
Considerations from rfc6775, rfc8505 apply.

[major] Also, let's work in a general pointer to rfc7416 somewhere
(instead of the very specific one below).

[major ?] Are there attacks that can be injected into the RPL network
through ND?  I'm wondering if a RUL can request and inject a
significant number of addresses so that it could hinder the operation
of the LLN.  I don't know if that's even an issue...just thinking out
loud.

1156	   6LoWPAN ND can optionally provide SAVI features with [AP-ND], which
1157	   reduces even more the attack perimeter that is available to the edge
1158	   nodes.

[minor] I think there's some discussion of this in rfc8505...maybe
point to that.  Otherwise, this paragraph feels orphan...

1160	   The LLN nodes depend on the 6LBR and the RPL participants for their
1161	   operation.  A trust model must be put in place to ensure that the
1162	   right devices are acting in these roles, so as to avoid threats such
1163	   as black-holing, (see [RFC7416] section 7) or bombing attack whereby
1164	   an impersonated 6LBR would destroy state in the network by using the
1165	   "Removed" Status code.

1167	   This trust model could be at a minimum based on a Layer-2 Secure
1168	   joining and the Link-Layer security.  This is a generic 6LoWPAN
1169	   requirement, see Req5.1 in Appendix of [RFC8505].

1171	   Additionally, the trust model could include a role validation to
1172	   ensure that the node that claims to be a 6LBR or a RPL Root is
1173	   entitled to do so.

[major] There was some trust model-related text in
draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138 that we ended up replacing.  Please do
the same here.

1175	   At the time of this writing RPL does not have a zerotrust model
1176	   whereby it is possible to validate the origin of an address that is
1177	   injected in a DAO.  This specification makes a first step in that
1178	   direction by allowing the Root to challenge the RUL via the 6LR that
1179	   serves it.

[nit] s/writing RPL/writing, RPL

[nit] s/zerotrust/zero-trust

[minor] The challenge really comes from the 6LBR (not the Root)...but
only if AP-ND is present.  IOW, the use of AP-ND is what adds the
protection, not the specification itself.  Is that what we're talking
about here?

If so, then I have a couple more things to point at:

- §3.2.3: "This specification does not address how the protection by [AP-ND]
  could be extended to RPL."  But that is what seems to be claimed above.

- §7.1: "The RUL SHOULD support [AP-ND] to protect the ownership of its
  addresses."  If the RUL doesn't, then whatever benefit is claimed/expected
  is lost.

1181	13.  IANA Considerations

[major] §14-17 should be sub-sections of this one.

...
1191	13.2.  Resizing the ARO Status values

1193	   Section 12 of [RFC6775] creates the Address Registration Option
1194	   Status Values Registry with a range 0-255.

1196	   This specification reduces that range to 0-63.

[minor] NEW>
   This specification reduces that range to 0-63 (Section 8).

1198	   IANA is requested to reduce the upper bound of the unassigned values
1199	   in the Address Registration Option Status Values Registry from -255
1200	   to -63.

[major] NEW>
   IANA is requested modify the Address Registration Option Status Values
   Registry so that the upper bound of the unassigned values is 63.  This
   document should be added as a reference.  The registration procedure does
   not change.

[major] Because of this change in the registry defined by rfc6775,
that RFC should be formally Updated.

1202	14.  New DODAG Configuration Option Flag

1204	   This specification updates the Registry for the "DODAG Configuration
1205	   Option Flags" that was created for [RFC6550] as follows:

[major] NEW>
   IANA is requested to assign a flag from the "DODAG Configuration Option
   Flags" registry as follows:

1207	          +------------+----------------------------+-----------+
1208	          | Bit Number | Capability Description     | Reference |
1209	          +============+============================+===========+
1210	          | 1          | Root Proxies EDAR/EDAC (P) | THIS RFC  |
1211	          +------------+----------------------------+-----------+

[major] Please mark the value (1) as suggested.

...
1215	15.  New RPL Target Option Flag

1217	   Section 20.15 of [RFC6550] creates a Registry for the 8-bit "RPL
1218	   Target Option Flags" field.  IANA is requested to reduce the size of
1219	   the field in the Registry to 4 bits.  This specification also defines
1220	   a new entry in the Registry as follows:

[] Suggestion>

   This document modifies the "RPL Target Option Flags" registry initially
   created in Section 20.15 of [RFC6550].  The registry now includes only
   4-bits (Section 9) and should point to this document as an additional
   reference.  The registration procedure doesn't change.

   The following table shows the initial assignment.

[major] This change in the registry should be flagged as an Update to rfc6550.

...
1228	                    Table 3: New RPL Target Option Flag

[minor] s/New RPL Target Option Flag/RPL Target Option Registry

1230	16.  New Subregistry for the RPL Non-Rejection Status values

1232	   This specification creates a new Subregistry for the RPL Non-
1233	   Rejection Status values for use in RPL DAO-ACK and DCO messages with
1234	   the 'A' flag reset, under the ICMPv6 parameters registry.

[nit] s/in RPL/in the RPL

[major] The DCO-ACK Status registry is under the RPL registry.  Why
isn't this one there too?  It is RPL-related.

...
1238	   *  Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126].

[major ?] All the other RPL registries have an "IETF Review"
registration procedure.  Why is this one different?

...
1242	              +-------+------------------------+-----------+
1243	              | Value | Meaning                | Reference |
1244	              +=======+========================+===========+
1245	              | 0     | Unqualified acceptance | RFC 6550  |
1246	              +-------+------------------------+-----------+

[major] Let's also add this document as a reference for this initial allocation.

...
1250	17.  New Subregistry for the RPL Rejection Status values

1252	   This specification creates a new Subregistry for the RPL Rejection
1253	   Status values for use in RPL DAO-ACK and RCO messages with the 'A'
1254	   flag reset, under the ICMPv6 parameters registry.

[nit] s/in RPL/in the RPL

[minor] s/RCO/DCO

[major] The DCO-ACK Status registry is under the RPL registry.  Why
isn't this one there too?  It is RPL-related.

...
1258	   *  Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126].

[major ?] All the other RPL registries have an "IETF Review"
registration procedure.  Why is this one different?

...
1276	19.  Normative References

[minor] The following references can be Informative:

...
1293	   [RFC4919]  Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
1294	              over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
1295	              Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
1296	              RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,
1297	              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.
...
1304	   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
1305	              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
1306	              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
1307	              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
...
1316	   [RFC6553]  Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
1317	              Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
1318	              Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
1319	              DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012,
1320	              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.
...
1322	   [RFC6554]  Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
1323	              Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
1324	              for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
1325	              DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
1326	              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.
...
1338	   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
1339	              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
1340	              DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
1341	              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
...
1353	   [RFC8138]  Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
1354	              "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
1355	              (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138,
1356	              April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.

...
1394	20.  Informative References
...
1429	   [RFC8504]  Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node
1430	              Requirements", BCP 220, RFC 8504, DOI 10.17487/RFC8504,
1431	              January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8504>.

[major] This reference should be Normative.

...
1439	Appendix A.  Example Compression
...
1455	   The difference with the example presented in Figure 19 of [RFC8138]
1456	   is the addition of a SRH-6LoRH before the RPI-6LoRH to transport the
1457	   compressed address of the 6LR as the destination address of the outer
1458	   IPv6 header.  In the original example the destination IP of the outer
1459	   header was elided and was implicitly the same address as the
1460	   destination of the inner header.  Type 1 was arbitrarily chosen, and
1461	   the size of 0 denotes a single address in the SRH.

[minor] Which one is the "original example", this one, or the one in rfc8138?

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:12:33 +0000

Hello Alvaro

Many thanks again and again!

> questions, and concerns that I thought I would.  I'm highlighting some of my
> major issues here, and have detailed comments in-line.

I see it this way: 

RFC 8504 expects classic ND, on-link subnet. We're doing ML Subnet and designed RFC 8505 as the evolution of ND to cover that case.
This draft is the first time we use RFC 8505 as a host-to-router (UNI) abstract interface to the router-to-router (NNI).
We use RPL in this case, but could be any routing protocol. 

So yes there can be a lot to iron out but it is worth the effort. Many thanks for your help and patience 😊

>  document...

Yes. I believe that is how we defined it. 
The RUL is an IPv6 host connected to RPL that does not speak RPL.

> but §7 normatively defines requirements and expected behaviors

RPL expects only RPL Aware Nodes, and the unprepared RUL will not get connectivity in a RPL network.
So we define here what needs to be added to a classic host to connect to RPL.
Unsurprisingly, it is based on the ND version that we defined for LLNs.

>  description: "RUL is an IPv6 Host [RFC8504]".

This was not meant to be a definition of a RUL but just one of its characteristics. 

 And we say it in section 2.1

"
   This document uses the terms RPL-Unaware Leaf (RUL) and RPL-Aware
   Leaf (RAL) consistently with "Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header
   for Source Routes and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data
   Plane" [USEofRPLinfo].
"

And useofrplinfo says :

"
   RPL Leaf: An IPv6 host that is attached to a RPL router and obtains
   connectivity through a RPL Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic
   Graph (DODAG).  As an IPv6 node, a RPL Leaf is expected to ignore a
   consumed Routing Header and as an IPv6 host, it is expected to ignore
   a Hop-by-Hop header.  It results that a RPL Leaf can correctly
   receive a packet with RPL artifacts.  On the other hand, a RPL Leaf
   is not expected to generate RPL artifacts or to support IP-in-IP
   encapsulation.  For simplification, this document uses the standalone
   term leaf to mean a RPL leaf.

   RPL-unaware-node: A device which does not implement RPL, thus the
   device is not-RPL-aware.  Please note that the device can be found
   inside the LLN.

   RPL-Unaware-Leaf(RUL): A RPL-unaware-node that is also a RPL Leaf.

"

>  I know that rfc8504 includes

The  RUL must be an IPv6 host, which means comply with RFC 8504; but RFC 8504 compliance is not sufficient for a RUL to connect to a RPL network, thus this spec.
This spec specifies the additions to RFC 8504 for that to happen. 
The RUL is an IPv6 host, that much is true. But not only that. It is a Leaf, which means reachable though RPL. 
Some magic must happen. That magic will not be found in classic ND because ND does not support MLSN. But 6LoWPAN ND does.

I see that the text could be read differently and that we need to reword to avoid it. Proposal:

OLD 
"
  RPL can be deployed as an extension to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND)
   [RFC4861][RFC4862] and 6LoWPAN ND [RFC6775][RFC8505] to maintain
   reachability within a Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) subnet.  In
   that mode, some nodes may act as Routers and participate to the
   forwarding operations whereas others will only terminate packets,
   acting as Hosts in the data-plane.  In [RFC6550] terms, a Host that
   is reachable over the RPL network is called a Leaf.

   "When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6" [USEofRPLinfo]
   introduces the term RPL-Aware-Leaf (RAL) for a Leaf that injects
   routes in RPL to manage the reachability of its own IPv6 addresses.
   In contrast, the term RPL-Unaware Leaf (RUL) designates a Leaf that
   does not participate to RPL at all.  A RUL is an IPv6 Host [RFC8504]
   that needs a RPL-Aware Router to obtain routing services over the RPL
   network.

"

NEW
"   
   RPL can be deployed as an extension to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND)
   [RFC4861][RFC4862] and 6LoWPAN ND [RFC6775][RFC8505] to maintain
   reachability within a Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) subnet.
   In that mode, IPv6 addresses are advertised individually as Host
   routes.  Some nodes may act as Routers and participate to the
   forwarding operations whereas others will only terminate packets,
   acting as Hosts in the data-plane.  In [RFC6550] terms, an IPv6 Host
   [RFC8504] that is reachable over the RPL network is called a Leaf.

   "When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6" [USEofRPLinfo]
   introduces the term RPL-Aware-Leaf (RAL) for a Leaf that injects Host
   routes in RPL to manage the reachability of its IPv6 addresses.  In
   contrast, the term RPL-Unaware Leaf (RUL) designates a Leaf that does
   not participate to RPL and cannot inject its Host routes in RPL.  The
   RUL therefore needs a Host-to-Router interface to advertise its IPv6
   addresses to its Router so the Router can inject them the RPL
   network, as detailed in Section 4. 

"

Section 4 being the uplifted location of the requirements on the RUL as you suggest later.

>  that is not clearly reflected in the document.  I would like to see, at*

You are correct in the intent. Does the change above help?

>  RUL.  Move §7 *before* you start discussing 6LoWPAN ND.

Do you really want that? 
Section 7 heavily uses the description of 6LoWPAN ND provided in section 3, see 7.1.
Moving section 7 before 3 does not compile without heavy forward referencing
But I can move it right after as follows:

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  RPL External Routes and Dataplane Artifacts . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Requirements on the RPL-Unware Leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Updating RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Updating draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao  . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Updating RFC 8505 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15   <SNIP>

Note that due to a point later, text was moved away from the ".Requirements on the RPL-Unware Leaf" to become its own section " RPL External Routes and Dataplane Artifacts " because it has normative text on the router that did not fit there.

>  general RUL without it having to comply with this document...but maybe
> worth a try.

A leaf is a generic terms that says that the node gets reachability over RPL but does not say how the address is injected and by whom.
For a RAL, the leaf uses RPL. For a RUL there can be many ways, but outside of RPL. RFC 8505 was crafted in preparation of this spec.
All we need now is that the RUL uses RFC 8505 with the settings that RFC 8505 says it should in the circumstances, as reminded in section 3.
So I guess it was improper from our side to duplicate the normative language. I like your term expectation.

"

4.1.  Support of 6LoWPAN ND

   To obtain routing services from a 6LR that implements this
   specification, a RUL is expected to implement [RFC8505] and set the
   "R" and "T" flags in the EARO.  The RUL may provide support of
   [AP-ND] to protect the ownership of its addresses.  The RUL is
   expected not to request routing services from a 6LR that does not
   originate RA messages with a CIO that has the L, P, and E flags all
   set as discussed in Section 3.3.1, unless configured to do so.

   A RUL that may attach to multiple 6LRs is expected to prefer those
   that provide routing services.  The RUL needs to register to all the
   6LRs from which it desires routing services.

   Parallel Address Registrations to several 6LRs should be performed in
   an rapid sequence, using the exact same EARO for the same Address.
   Gaps between the Address Registrations will invalidate some of the
   routes till the Address Registration finally shows on those routes.

   [RFC8505] introduces error Status values in the NA(EARO) which can be
   received synchronously upon an NS(EARO) or asynchronously.  The RUL
   MUST support both cases and MUST refrain from using the address when
   the Status Value indicates a rejection.

"

>  the LLN, right?  What about cases where RPL is not used in a 6LoWPAN?

Same. This is not a LLN problem. It is a problem in a MLSN where proactive routing is used. The router must be told to inject host routes in advance and we need a host-router interface for that. If you like, Classic ND is a form of UNI, and RFC 8505 extends it for proactive operations, whereas RPL is an NNI.

RFC 8504 only mandates classic ND (RFC 8505 missed that train by 1 RFC!!! ); With classic ND, the router does not have a prior knowledge of the host. ND discovers the host reactively. To match that in a MLSN, we'd need to flood the lookup; in a RPL network you'd have to use AODV-RPL. And then implement some route maintenance is the host moves.

>  Informatively reference?]

Nothing, sadly. There's always a voice saying we do not need it and the discussion dries out. 
There's https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless/ but it is just about wireless.
There's also https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rift-rift/ which shows how RFC 8505 can be useful in a DC.

Seems to me that 6MAN is more concerned with the interests of the host than of the router. Maybe a consequence of the way we do areas at the IETF. 
If we could get the routing area to flood 6MAN and explains the needs of modern (routed) subnets like overlays, maybe we could progress this work.

> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/mKWgLd5013cTBIOlgPg1op614z0/
> 
> 
> 

RFC 8505 defines a 6LN functionality and the RUL needs to implement that functionality. 
A 6LN as defined in 6LoWPAN can do things that the RUL does not need to for the sake of this spec, e.g., RFC 6282 compression.
So I need to be very careful every time 6LN is mentioned. Note that useofrplinfo uses 6LR for the border router, which is echoed here. 

>  functionality...or that one is acting as the other...
 
Yes, I need to scan and clean that up ref by ref. here's a sample:

"
 This specification leverages the Address Registration mechanism defined in
   6LoWPAN ND to enable a RUL acting as a 6LoWPAN Node (6LN) to interface with a
   RPL-Aware Router as a 6LoWPAN Router (6LR) and request that the 6LR injects
   a Host route for the Registered Address in the RPL routing on its behalf."
"
   The unicast packet forwarding operation by the 6LR serving a RUL as described in section 4.1 of <xref target='I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo'/>.
"
"
    A RPL Leaf that implements the 6LN functionality in <xref target='RFC8505'/>
   requires reachability services for an IPv6 address if and only
   if it sets the "R" flag in the NS(EARO) used to register the address to a RPL
"
"
   which means that nodes that are aware of the Host route are also
   aware of the ROVR associated to the Target Address.
"

>  document (§7) expects the RUL to be a 6LN (support rfc6775/rfc8505...).

Yes. In my update I'm trying to use 6LN in the context of the registration flow, which is the piece that the RUL needs to implement.

>    to support IP-in-IP decapsulation.

When we describe a 6LoWPAN ND flow, it is easier to speak in 6LoWPAN terms, so there are multiple places where we want to conserve that term.

So I added in the terminology:
"
   This specification uses the terms 6LN and 6LR to refer specifically to the
   roles defined in 6LoWPAN ND and does expect other functionality
   such as 6LoWPAN Header Compression <xref target='RFC6282'/> from those nodes.
"

>  and clarity throughout the document is important.

It is indeed. I made a long pass.

>  necessary for all the changes mentioned in those sections.

We have this unresolved item on turnon RFC 8138. Seems very similar from my perspective and I'm concerned that we may have other reviewer asking it back.

But OK, I'll remove the formal update for now.

> P.S.: I noticed too late the GitHub location...I could have at least included some
> of the nits as a PR there.  Maybe it would be a good idea to indicate in the draft
> and the datatracker when GitHub is being used. :-)

Very true, do we have a standard for that?

I'll do the nits tomorrow but would like to assess your approval on the above already so I 
Please see https://github.com/roll-wg/roll-unaware-leaves/commit/7b4e13a002ae2da39fd4655b2c2c23c70925ed6c

Many, many thanks Alvaro!

Pascal

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:00:14 +0000

Hello again Alvaro

This is a quick pass on the nits (and snipped those I implemented as suggested):

> [major] A mention of Updating draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao is missing in the
> Abstract.  See also the comments in §5.

Removed the formal update and commented out the update text

> ...") in the Introduction...perhaps at the end of the section.

added
"
   This document is organized as follows:

   *  Section 3 and Section 4 present salient aspects of RPL and 6LoWPAN
      ND, respectively, that are leveraged in this specification to
      provide connectivity to a RUL across a RPL network.

   *  Section 5 lists the expectations that a RUL needs to match in
      order to be served by a RPL router that complies with this
      specification.

   *  Section 6, Section 7, and Section 8 presents the additions to
      [RFC6550], [EFFICIENT-NPDAO], and [RFC8505].

   *  Section 9 and Section 10 present the operation of this
      specification for unicast and multicast flows, respectively, and
      Section 11 presents associated security considerations.

"

> is not in rfc6687...but there are other terms that might be what you meant.

Yes, they use path stretch; updating.

> [] "lazily"  Maybe I'm not getting the proper meaning, but it doesn't sound
> good...

We use the term "lazy" to mean an update that is not done immediately upon the event but opportunistically sometime later. This applies for instance to writing to disk in the db world.

> [minor] Do we really need rfc4862 as a reference for IPv6 ND?

Hard to present classic IPv6 ND without mentioning SLAAC, is it? 
I'd rather not make a change there

> ...or perhaps simply [USEofRPLinfo], since there will be an RFC number by the
> time we publish.

Even better yes

> [major] "unsafe to let it inject routes in RPL"   This is a good topic to talk about
> more in the Security Considerations section.

Yes, this is the point of the text below:

"

11.  Security Considerations

   First of all, it is worth noting that with [RFC6550], every node in
   the LLN is RPL-aware and can inject any RPL-based attack in the
   network.  This specification isolates edge nodes that can only
   interact with the RPL Routers using 6LoWPAN ND, meaning that they
   cannot perform RPL insider attacks.

   6LoWPAN ND can optionally provide SAVI features with [AP-ND], which
   reduces even more the attack perimeter that is available to the edge
   nodes.

"

> 
> [major] Even if 6LoWPAN ND is used, a rogue router can still inject instability,
> or too much control information in the LLN by adding/removing addresses
> constantly, for example.  Maybe a risk to be flagged in the Security
> Considerations.

We had
"
   This trust model could be at a minimum based on a Layer-2 Secure
   joining and the Link-Layer security.  This is a generic 6LoWPAN
   requirement, see Req5.1 in Appendix of [RFC8505]. 
"

I'm now adding
"
                                                                                                   It is needed in
   particular to prevent Denial-Of-Service attacks whereby a rogue 6LN
   creates a high churn in the RPL network by constantly registering and
   deregistering addresses with the "R" flag set in the EARO.   
"

> [] s/BCP 14/Requirements Language

Yes I saw it coming and did that in the previous pass 

> [a comment for USEofRPLinfo] "consistently with [USEofRPLinfo]"  It would be
> nice if USEofRPLinfo referenced this document on the definition of a RUL,
> instead of defining it there too.  Yes, that would mean a Normative
> dependency.

This was the final intention after some back and forth fluctuation. 
And yes it is a normative reference for exactly that reason.

> [nit] "This is the reason..."  What is the reason?  A counter?  It may not be
> clear to other readers what you're referring to.
> 

Reworded
"
   When the "T" flag is set, the EARO includes a sequence counter called
   Transaction ID (TID), that is needed to fill the Path Sequence Field
   in the RPL Transit Option.  This is the reason why the support of
   [RFC8505] by the RUL as opposed to only [RFC6775] is a prerequisite
   for this specification (more in Section 5.1).
"
 
> [major] "SHOULD include a 6CIO"  What are the cases where it is ok to not
> include the 6CIO?  IOW, why is this behavior not a requirement?

Could be configuration. But OK made it a MUST

> 
> 440	4.  Updating RFC 6550
> 
> [major] To me, Updating an RFC means that the implementations of that RFC
> should also implement this one.  In this case, there would be an expectation
> that all RPL nodes would support everything mentioned here.  Is that what is
> intended?  Should all the changes in this section be part of the Update?

Well, I have not seen that we converged to that understanding. 
There were reviews after yours that told me to do the opposite on the turnon RFC 8138 draft 
Did we reach an agreement at IESG level on this?
In the meantime, I'll trust you again though I'm prepared for more churn.

> implement this specification to comply.

There's updated that replaces stuff and updated that adds stuff on top. 
Here we are updating the format of RPL messages in a backward compatible fashion.
For me that means updates. Anyway we find later that updates is needed.

> 
> [Personal opinion: it seems to me that some of the enhancements make sense
> on some nodes, but it is not necessary for all the nodes to support this
> specification for it to work.  For example, Figure 5 shows the flow with
> participation from the 6LR, Root, and 6LBR -- the other nodes in the LLN don't
> need to be aware of the changes.]

Very correct. If only enough 6LRs at the edge do it we're done.

> 
> [] Is there anything in rfc6550 that limits the source of the routing information
> in the DAOs?  It seems to me that rfc6550 already allows external information
> to be injected in the network...so getting it from a RUL doesn't sound like an
> Update to me.
> 

True, that is not why we have the updates. See sections "Updated RPL Status " and "Updated RPL Target Option"

> [] Yes, there's a proxy behavior...but I would see that more as a change to ND
> than an Update to rfc6550.

This is why we also update 8505, see section" Updating RFC 8505 ". I restored that updates too.

> [] §9 says that this change is backward compatible; do we need all RPL nodes
> to support it?  See my comment there about requiring (vs
> recommending) the use...and about the potential forward compatibility need
> to Update...

Not so. The RUL is advertised in non-storing mode, meaning unicast from access 6LR straight to the Root
So this particular spec is backward compatible, as per your own intuition (your [personal opinion point above)

> 
> [] I put a note in §15 about Updading rfc6550 because of the changes in the
> registry (which is different than the functionality described here)...take a look.
> 

Sorry I'm not following. Please let me know if I need to restore the updates or not?

> [minor] "the IPv6 Address of the prefix advertiser when the Target is a shorter
> prefix"   I'm confused about this because then the F flag is set the Target is a
> full 128 bit address, not a shorter one.  What did I miss?
> 

Reworded to
"
   Section 6.7.7 of [RFC6550] introduces the RPL Target Option, which
   can be used in RPL Control messages such as the DAO message to signal
   a destination prefix.  Section 6.2 adds the capabilities to transport
   the ROVR field (see Section 4.2.3) and the full IPv6 Address of the
   prefix advertiser when the Target is a shorter prefix, signaled by a
   new "F" flag.

"
Added "full". The point of "F" is similar to what we do in mobile IP. We place the 128bits address of the advertising node within the longer prefix that is advertised for routing purpose.

> [major] The P flag is not defined in §9...or anywhere else.

That was the definition of the "P" flag. I added a subsection based on the converged text in the turnon RFC 8138 draft. Note that I still need you and Benjamin Kaduk to agree on the updates or not there too - at the latest it is back on.

"
6.2.  Updated DODAG Configuration Option

   The DODAG Configuration Option is defined in Section 6.7.6 of
   [RFC6550].  Its purpose is extended to distribute configuration
   information affecting the construction and maintenance of the DODAG,
   as well as operational parameters for RPL on the DODAG, through the
   DODAG.  As shown in Figure 4, the Option was originally designed with
   4 bit positions reserved for future use as Flags.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Type = 0x04 |Opt Length = 14| |P| | |A|       ...           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                     +

            Figure 4: DODAG Configuration Option (Partial View)

   This specification defines a new flag "Root Proxies EDAR/EDAC" (P).
   The "P" flag is set to indicate support for this specification at the
   Root within the DODAG.  The "P" flag is encoded in position 1 of the
   reserved Flags in the DODAG Configuration Option (counting from bit 0
   as the most significant bit) and set to 0 in legacy implementations
   as specified respectively in Sections 20.14 and 6.7.6 of [RFC6550].

   The "P" flag is set to indicate that the Root performs the proxy
   operation, which implies that it supports the Updated RPL Target
   Option (see Section 6.1).

   The RPL DODAG Configuration Option is typically placed in a DODAG
   Information Object (DIO) message.  The DIO message propagates down
   the DODAG to form and then maintain its structure.  The DODAG
   Configuration Option is copied unmodified from parents to children.

   Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in
   the DIO Base Object.  This specification applies to MOP values 0 to
   6.  For a MOP value of 7, the bit in position 1 is considered
   unallocated and [RFC8138] MUST be used by default.

   [RFC6550] states that "Nodes other than the DODAG Root MUST NOT
   modify this information when propagating the DODAG Configuration
   option".  Therefore, a legacy parent propagates the "P" flag as set
   by the Root whether it supports this specification or not.  So when
   the "P" flag is set, it is transparently flooded to all the nodes in
   the DODAG.

"
> 
> [] Hard to say if this change is an Update without a specification of the P flag.
> 

Please consider sections

  7.  Updating draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao  . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Updating RFC 8505 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Protocol Operations for Unicast Addresses . . . . . . . . . .  16

For now based on discussion deeper in tis thread I restored the formal updates.

> [] We have an ongoing discussion about MOPs elsewhere.  For now, I think
> that the Update should happen elsewhere.

I used the final text in turnon RFC 8138 to create the new section above

>    DIO Base Object.  This specification of the new "P" flag applies to MOP

I'll rather use the new section that went through IESG reviews

> [major] Besides enabling the EARO status to be carried, §8 also reduces the
> size of the status from 8 to 6 bits, with the new encoding...  This *is* a
> necessary Update to rfc6550.
> 

Restored! 

> [] Note that even though the same RPL Status is used in the DCO message, a
> formal Update is not required for EFFICIENT-NPDAO for the reduction of the
> size since that document is already inheriting the Update from rfc6500: "RPL
> Status: As defined in [RFC6550] and updated in [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves]."
> 
> 
> [major] To me, Updating an RFC means that the implementations of that RFC
> should also implement this one.  In this case, there would be an expectation
> that all nodes that support the DCO would support the Non-Storing MOP as
> well.  Is that what is intended?

Actually that would be better for e.g., the backbone router, but is not necessary for this spec.
With this reading I'd rather do the updates but I keep it out for now.

> [Personal opinion: I don't think a formal Update of draft-ietf-roll-efficient-
> npdao is needed.  As mentioned below, this document "extends"...]

OK then!

Voila!

This second set of diffs is available here

https://github.com/roll-wg/roll-unaware-leaves/commit/de2ce1ae31b78b664a94dfc08bb0f52dac882d62

That's a bunch! I published -20 so we can have a new reference to discuss about with the aggregation of the 2 diff sets.

Html:           https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-19.html
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-19
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-19

Please let me know : )
Many thanks Alvaro!

Take care,

Pascal

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 16:06:09 -0400

Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> (1) What is a RUL?
    >> 
    >>  I assumed that a RUL would be a "plain" IPv6 node that is not aware
    >> of RPL  at all.  That definition would include, of course, not being
    >> aware of this  document...

    > Yes. I believe that is how we defined it.  The RUL is an IPv6 host
    > connected to RPL that does not speak RPL.

Alvero, we struggled with this a lot.

As Carsten said repeatedly, and I think worth repeating,  a plain IPv6 node
which is not aware of any RPL stuff at all would be... a *host*
  I tried at the time of RFC8504 (not, RFC8505!) to get our requirements into
  6man, but I didn't have the energy, and the reception was rather cold at
  the time.   I think people were exhausted from SRH debate on 8200.

So our definition of a RUL is any node that does not send a DAO on it's own.
Instead, it speaks RS/NS/ND, and yes, RFC8505 specifically.

    > This was not meant to be a definition of a RUL but just one of its

-> IPv6 host is not necessarily a RUL.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:43:05 +0000

Dear Alvaro

Following up on the call on Monday and Michael's changes in useofrplinfo I published a version 20 of this draft.

You'll find that it still updates RFC 6550 and RFC 8505. The reasons are in eth second mail.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves/

There is also a HTML versions available at:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-20.html

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-20

I attached for your convenience my partial answers to you email below. Please let me know where you think we are now.

Keep safe;

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
> Sent: mercredi 16 septembre 2020 16:58
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Rahul Jadhav <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; Routing Over
> Low power and Lossy networks <[email-masked]>
> Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18
> 
> Dear Pascal/Michael:
> 
> worth
> [nit] s/as opposed to straight along a shortest path between 2 peers, whatever
> that would mean in a given LLN./as opposed to along the shortest path
> between 2 peers.
> 
> 
> [USEofRPLinfo]/"Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and
> IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane"
> [USEofRPLinfo]
> 
> [nit] "This document specifies..."  Please add a forward reference to where it is
> done.
> 
> 
> [nit] "This is the reason..."  What is the reason?  A counter?  It may not be clear
> to other readers what you're referring to.
> 
> 
> [] We have an ongoing discussion about MOPs elsewhere.  For now, I think that
> the Update should happen elsewhere.
> 
> [major] Besides enabling the EARO status to be carried, §8 also reduces the size
> of the status from 8 to 6 bits, with the new encoding...  This *is* a necessary
> Update to rfc6550.
> 
> 
> 489	   the RAN that injected the DAO message for the considered target

Subject: RE: AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
To: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Rahul Jadhav <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:00:14 +0000

Hello again Alvaro

added
"

"

Even better yes

"

"

We had
"

I'm now adding
"
                                                                                                   It is needed in

Reworded
"

Reworded to
"

"

"

      0                   1                   2                   3

"

Please consider sections

Restored!

OK then!

Voila!

Please let me know : )
Many thanks Alvaro!

Take care,

Pascal

Subject: RE: AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
To: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Rahul Jadhav <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:12:33 +0000

Hello Alvaro

I see it this way:

"

And useofrplinfo says :

"

"

OLD
"

"

NEW
"

"

Do you really want that?

"

"

"

Pascal

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 14:14:35 -0400

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > Following up on the call on Monday and Michael's changes in
    > useofrplinfo I published a version 20 of this draft.

...

    > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-20

All looks good to me.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide