Subject: [Roll] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 22:46:55 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-11: No Objection

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

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

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138/

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

Just a couple of very minor comments:

“RPL” should be expanded on first use.
We should probably ask the RFC Editor to mark “DAG” and “DODAG” as “well
known”, but they are not yet so marked, so “DODAG” should be expanded on first
use.

— Section 5.3 —

   It is RECOMMENDED to only deploy nodes that support [RFC8138] in a
   network where the compression is turned on.

I think I misread this the first time; it’s ambiguous, so please reword it to
make this clear.  What is it that’s recommended?: 1. In a network where
compression is turned on, only deploy nodes that support 8138? 2. Don’t deploy
nodes that support 8138 unless compression is turned on?

— Section 7 —

   An attacker in the middle of the network may reset the "T" flag

Thank you for this phrasing; I like it.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:49:18 -0400

> known”, but they are not yet so marked, so “DODAG” should be expanded on first

Do we just send them a request?
I guess we ask them to point at RFC6550.

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

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:18:03 -0400

> I guess we ask them to point at RFC6550.

Their abbreviation list
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt> doesn't
include references, and just flags certain abbreviations with an
asterisk, meaning that they don't always expect them to be expanded.
It's clear that in routing documents, everyone knows what DAG and
DODAG are, and insisting that they be expanded doesn't accomplish
much.  Also, not expanding them doesn't eliminate the need for a
reference when it's appropriate; it's the difference between "blah
blah DODAG [RFC6550]" and "blah blah Destination-Oriented Directed
Acyclic Graph (DODAG) [RFC6550]".

I think it should be Álvaro who makes the request, but, yes, it's just
a matter of sending a note to the RFC Editor.

Barry

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:31:14 -0700

Yup.  I will.

Alvaro.

On September 2, 2020 at 1:18:15 PM, Barry Leiba ([email-masked])
wrote:

I think it should be Álvaro who makes the request, but, yes, it's just a
matter of sending a note to the RFC Editor.