Efficient Route Invalidation
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-04-02
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-03-22
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2021-02-16
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2021-01-26
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2021-01-26
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2020-04-28
|
18 | Ines Robles | Added to session: interim-2020-roll-01 |
2020-04-15
|
18 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18.txt |
2020-04-15
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-15
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhen Cao , Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo |
2020-04-15
|
18 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-05
|
17 | Dominique Barthel | Added to session: IETF-106: roll Tue-1000 |
2019-10-31
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from EDIT |
2019-10-31
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2019-10-30
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from IESG |
2019-10-30
|
17 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-17.txt |
2019-10-30
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-30
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2019-10-30
|
17 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-17
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/cxyoy9uUtWQoUsHc0ge8VUx-6KY |
2019-09-05
|
16 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16.txt |
2019-09-05
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-09-05
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2019-09-05
|
16 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-30
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IESG from EDIT |
2019-08-26
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Jouni Korhonen was marked no-response |
2019-07-19
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-07-18
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2019-07-18
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-07-18
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-07-18
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-07-17
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-07-17
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on WGC |
2019-07-16
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on WGC |
2019-07-12
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-07-12
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-07-12
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-07-11
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-07-11
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2019-07-11
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-07-11
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-07-11
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-07-08
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my discuss! Old comments below for the record: One question on section 4.6.2: You present use of NPDAO and DCO … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my discuss! Old comments below for the record: One question on section 4.6.2: You present use of NPDAO and DCO as two options, however, the problem with the I flag is that the sender does not know if the ancestor understand the signal. Wouldn't it also make sense to use both in some cases, e.g. send DAO with I flag first and if you don't receive a DCO after some limited time, you also send the NPDAO? Nits: sec 1.2: s/so that the node changing it routing adjacencies/so that the node changing its routing adjacencies/ -> "it" instead of "its" |
2019-07-08
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-07-08
|
15 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-15.txt |
2019-07-08
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-08
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2019-07-08
|
15 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-08
|
14 | Min Ye | Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Eric Gray. |
2019-07-03
|
14 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-14.txt |
2019-07-03
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-03
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2019-07-03
|
14 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-30
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-06-30
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-06-30
|
13 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-13.txt |
2019-06-30
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-30
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2019-06-30
|
13 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-27
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-06-27
|
12 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot comment] Hi, thank you for this document. I only have minor comments/questions: * Please expand LLNs * it's a bit pity that D flag … [Ballot comment] Hi, thank you for this document. I only have minor comments/questions: * Please expand LLNs * it's a bit pity that D flag is bit '0' in DCO and bit '1' in DCO-ACK * 0x05 RPL Target and 0x06 Transit Information are RPL Control Message Options but they are not really DCO Options as they MUST be present. * it is not fully clear to me whether Path Sequence can or should be incremented on DCO retry. * I'm not sure this has any meaning (didn't have enough time to think about this scenario) but what would happen if D sends a DAO which never reaches A and A decides to send an unsolicited DCO. How would D react to receiving a message with a sequence number which is smaller than the one it has sent? Is that an issue? * I feel that imposing the unused flags to be set to zero is not necessary. MUST ignore the unspecified flags is sufficient. |
2019-06-27
|
12 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot comment text updated for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-06-27
|
12 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot comment] Hi, thank you for this document. I only have minor comments/questions: * Please expand LLNs * it's a bit pity that D flag … [Ballot comment] Hi, thank you for this document. I only have minor comments/questions: * Please expand LLNs * it's a bit pity that D flag is bit '0' in DCO and bit '1' in DCO-ACK * 0x05 RPL Target and 0x06 Transit Information are RPL Control Message Options but they are not really DCO Options as they MUST be present. * it is not fully clear to me whether Path Sequence can or should be incremented on DCO retry * I'm not sure this has any meaning (didn't have enough time to think about this scenario) but what would happen if D sends a DAO which never reaches A and A decides to send an unsolicited DCO. How would D react to receiving a message with a sequence number which is smaller than the one it has sent? Is that an issue? * I feel that imposing the unused flags to be set to zero is not necessary. MUST ignore the unspecified flags is sufficient. |
2019-06-27
|
12 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-06-27
|
12 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2019-06-27
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you all for the work put into this clear and well-written document. I have only one COMMENT: DCO should be mentioned in … [Ballot comment] Thank you all for the work put into this clear and well-written document. I have only one COMMENT: DCO should be mentioned in the abstract as the document goes beyond a problem description (as currently described in the abstract). |
2019-06-27
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] * Section 4.3 "A new ICMPv6 RPL control message type" Shouldn't this be "code" instead of "type" given that the RPL control message … [Ballot comment] * Section 4.3 "A new ICMPv6 RPL control message type" Shouldn't this be "code" instead of "type" given that the RPL control message types are ICMPv6 codes? |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Thanks to the authors for a well-written and easy-to-follow document. I only have two tiny editorial suggestions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §1.2: > RPL uses NPDAO … [Ballot comment] Thanks to the authors for a well-written and easy-to-follow document. I only have two tiny editorial suggestions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §1.2: > RPL uses NPDAO messaging in the storing mode so that the node > changing it routing adjacencies can invalidate the previous route. Nit: "...changing its routing..." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §6.2: > The following bits are currently defined: This value appears to be an enumeration rather than a bitmap, right? I think you want to replace "bits" with "values" in this sentence. |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Brian Weis | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Weis. Sent review to list. |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Thank you for writing this. I have a few suggestions / nits: 1: Please choose one version of "pro-active" vs "proactive" 2: "In … [Ballot comment] Thank you for writing this. I have a few suggestions / nits: 1: Please choose one version of "pro-active" vs "proactive" 2: "In Figure 1, when node D decides to switch the path from B to C, it sends a regular DAO to node C with reachability information containing target as address of D and an incremented Path Sequence." I found this really hard to parse -- I know what you were trying to say, but I couldn't make the words do that :-) I think that the issue is "containing target as address of D" -- perhaps "containing the address of D as the target"? Or something? |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] A few areas of ambiguity: (1) Section 4.3. Per “DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message …”: -- To confirm, DCOSequence is getting … [Ballot comment] A few areas of ambiguity: (1) Section 4.3. Per “DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message …”: -- To confirm, DCOSequence is getting incremented for each new unique DCO message? If so, how is it incremented? -- How is roll-over handled? (2) Section 4.3.4. Per the Status field and “The remaining status values are reserved as rejection codes”, where are those rejections codes described and enumerated? A few editorial nits: ** Section 1. Editorial Nit. s/RPL has an optional messaging/RPL has operational messaging/ ** Section 2.3. Expand the word. s/async/asynchronous/ ** Section 4.2. Typo. s/[RFC6550] allows parent address/[RFC6550] allows the parent address/ ** Section 4.3. All of the other fields descriptions in this section specify the size of the field (e.g., 8-bit) but the description of DCOSequence does not ** Section 4.3.2. Cite the references for the permitted options ** Section 4.3.3. Typo. s/seqeunce/sequence/ ** Section 4.6.1. Per “Note that setting the I-flag”, this sentence would read more clearly without the double negative. |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] A few areas of ambiguity: (1) Section 4.3. Per “DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message …”: -- To confirm, DCOSequence is getting … [Ballot comment] A few areas of ambiguity: (1) Section 4.3. Per “DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message …”: -- To confirm, DCOSequence is getting incremented for each new unique DCO message? If so, how is it incremented? -- How is roll-over handled? (2) Section 4.3.4. Per the Status field and “The remaining status values are reserved as rejection codes”, where are those rejections codes described and enumerated? A few editorial nits: ** Section 1. Editorial Nit. s/RPL has an optional messaging/RPL has operational messaging/ ** Section 2.3. Expand the word. s/async/asynchronous/ ** Section 4.2. Typo. s/[RFC6550] allows parent address/[RFC6550] allows the parent address/ ** Section 4.3. All of the other fields descriptions in this section specify the size of the field (e.g., 8-bit) but the description of DCOSequence does not ** Section 4.3.2. Cite the references for the permitted options ** Section 4.3.3. Typo. s/seqeunce/sequence/ ** Section 4.6.1. Per “Note that setting the I-flag”, this sentence would read more clearly without the double negative. |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] A few areas of ambiguity: (1) Section 4.3. Per “DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message …”: -- To confirm, DCOSequence is getting … [Ballot comment] A few areas of ambiguity: (1) Section 4.3. Per “DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message …”: -- To confirm, DCOSequence is getting incremented for each new unique DCO message? If so, how is it incremented? -- How is roll-over handled? (2) Section 4.3.4. Per the Status field and “The remaining status values are reserved as rejection codes”, where are those rejections codes described and enumerated? A few editorial nits: ** Section 1. Editorial Nit. s/RPL has an optional messaging/RPL has operational messaging/ ** Section 2.3. Expand the word. s/async/asynchronous/ ** Section 4.2. Typo. s/[RFC6550] allows parent address/[RFC6550] allows the parent address/ ** Section 4.3. All of the other fields descriptions in this section specify the size of the field (e.g., 8-bit) but the description of DCOSequence does not ** Section 4.3.2. Cite the references for the permitted options ** Section 4.3.3. Typo. s/seqeunce/sequence/ ** Section 4.6.1. Per “Note that setting the I-flag”, this sentence would read more clearly without the double negative. |
2019-06-26
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-06-25
|
12 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] I think that we need greater clarity about whether the DCOSequence number is just a series of monotonic (i.e., time-ordered) nonces (to be … [Ballot comment] I think that we need greater clarity about whether the DCOSequence number is just a series of monotonic (i.e., time-ordered) nonces (to be echoed back for matching request/response) or a full-on sequence counter that allows for loss detection as well as providing in-order delivery. It sounds like we just need the time-ordering and single-use properties, but I'm not entirely sure. I wavered about making this a Discuss point but ended up not doing so since I'm not sure how much harm is being risked. (I also mention this topic a couple times in the section-by-section comments below.) I agree with Barry that the Abstract is really hard to parse. Section 1.2 RPL uses NPDAO messaging in the storing mode so that the node changing it routing adjacencies can invalidate the previous route. nit: "its routing adjacencies" This is needed so that nodes along the previous path can release any resources (such as the routing entry) it maintains on behalf of target node. nit: singular/plural mismatch "nodes"/"it maintains" Section 4.1 When node A receives the regular DAO, it finds that it already has a routing table entry on behalf of the target address of node D. It finds however that the next hop information for reaching node D has changed i.e., node D has decided to change the paths. In this case, Node A which is the common ancestor node for node D along the two paths (previous and new), should generate a DCO which traverses downwards in the network. I can't decide whether or not it helps readability to reiterate that in addition to creating the DCO, node A also does normal DAO processing (e.g., forwarding to the 6LBR). I guess the example in A.1 does show this normal processing, so maybe it's overkill to also do so here. Section 4.2 Transit Information Option should be carried in the DAO message with I-flag set in case route invalidation is sought for the corresponding target(s). nit: this text as written implies thatthe I-flag is set in the DAO itself, not the TIO therein. I'd also suggest to s/in case/when/ for clarity. The common ancestor node SHOULD generate a DCO message in response to this I-flag when it sees that the routing adjacencies have changed for the target. I-flag governs the ownership of the DCO message in a way that the target node is still in control of its own route invalidation. nit: "The I-flag" (start of last sentence). I'd further suggest rewording to something like "The I-flag is intended to give the target node control over its own route invalidation, serving as a signal to request DCO generation; in normal operation a DCO would not otherwise be generated"; the current text about "ownership" has some weird connotations/implications and this text also implicitly assumes that DAO/TIO/I-flag will never be maliciously generated. It is also a little weaker about unsolicited DCO, per Section 4.5 Section 4.3 A new ICMPv6 RPL control message type is defined by this specification called as "Destination Cleanup Object" (DCO), which is nit: either "called" or "known as" or "referred to as" would be fine; "called as" is a grammatical mismatch. DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message from a node and echoed in the DCO-ACK message. The initial DCOSequence can be chosen randomly by the node. What's the behavior if a sequence number is skipped? (Why do we have a sequence number if we aren't going to detect and act on this condition?) Ah, I see Section 4.3.3, but perhaps a forward-reference is in order. Section 4.3.4 It seems that the "Reserved" field should be called "Flags", since a registry is being created for it. (I trust that the language about the D flag and DODAGID optionality from Barry's ballot thread is consistent between DCO and DCO-ACK.) Section 4.4 1. If a node sends a DCO message with newer or different information than the prior DCO message transmission, it MUST increment the DCOSequence field by at least one. A DCO message transmission that is identical to the prior DCO message transmission MAY increment the DCOSequence field. While reading up to this point I managed to confuse myself about Path Sequence (which must be consistent from DAO to DCO) and the separate DAOSequence and DCOSequence fields. To check my (less confused) understanding, I guess if I could over-summarize, Path Sequence is like a generation counter for a given node's position in the routing topology, and the other two are for managing retransmission/ack of the respective update messages. So if that mental model is correct, then there's not any value from trying to introduce a shared sequence number space for DCO and DAO, even though they are frequently going to be generated at the same time, especially since they have different recipients. Right? I do agree with the other discussion that we need clarity about whether the increment is exactly one or larger values are allowed (plus, presumably, whether the recipient should infer anything from a sequence number gap). I do note that these are expected to be "lollipop sequence counters" per RFC 6550. 4. A node receiving a unicast DCO message with the 'K' flag set SHOULD respond with a DCO-ACK. A node receiving a DCO message without the 'K' flag set MAY respond with a DCO-ACK, especially to report an error condition. This seems redundant with Section 4.3's "A node receiving a DCO message without the 'K' flag set MAY respond with a DCO-ACK, especially to report an error condition." Section 4.4 The scope of DCOSequence values is unique to each node. recipient or originator? Section 4.5 path on behalf of the target entry. The 6LR has all the state information namely, the Target address and the Path Sequence, nit: comma before "namely". Section 4.6.2 Even with the changed semantics, the current NPDAO mechanism in [RFC6550] can still be used, for example, when the route lifetime expiry of the target happens or when the node simply decides to gracefully terminate the RPL session on graceful node shutdown. Er, what changed semantics? This document does not have an Updates: relationship to any other document. Section 4.6.3 Note that there is no requirement of synchronization between DCO and DAOs. The DelayDCO timer simply ensures that the DCO control overhead can be reduced and is only needed when the network contains nodes using multiple preferred parent. This ("no requirement of synchronization") is because the benefit of DCO is in expiring routes faster than their normal expiration time to save local storage, rather than to provide synchronous route migration? (It might be worth reiterating, if you want.) Section 7 This document introduces the ability for a common ancestor node to invalidate a route on behalf of the target node. The common ancestor node is directed to do so by the target node using the 'I' flag in DCO's Transit Information Option. However, the common ancestor node nit(?): there's perhaps some wordsmithing possible about "is directed to do so", given the next sentence and Section 4.5. is also met. Having said that a malicious 6LR may spoof a DAO on behalf of the (sub) child with the I-flag set and can cause route invalidation on behalf of the (sub) child node. IIUC, such a malicious 6LR might also spoof a DAO even without this mechanism (to invalidate the "proper" Path Sequence) or otherwise cause denial of service by dropping traffic entirely, so perhaps we want to add another clause ", so this new mechanism does not present a substantially increased risk of disruption". This document assumes that the security mechanisms as defined in [RFC6550] are followed, which means that the common ancestor node and all the 6LRs are part of the RPL network because they have the required credentials. A non-secure RPL network needs to take into consideration the risks highlighted in this section. I'd consider adding "as well as those highlighted in [RFC6550]" to the end. Appendix A.1 6. Node G receives the DCO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1). It checks if the received path sequence is latest as compared to the stored path sequence. If it is latest, Node G invalidates routing entry of target D and forwards the (un)reachability information downstream to B in DCO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1). This wording of "latest as compared to" feels unusual to me; I would have expected "is later than the stored path sequence" and "If it is later", but perhaps there is a convention here that I'm missing. nit: "invalidates the routing entry" 9. The propagation of the DCO will stop at any node where the node does not have an routing information associated with the target. If the routing information is present and its Path Sequence is higher, then still the DCO is dropped. nit: maybye reword to "If cached routing information is present and the cached Path Sequence is higher than the value in the DCO, then the DCO is dropped". Appendix A.2 I feel like we should probably mention the DelayDAO timer as well as the DelayDCO one. I think this is a side note, but it seems like the timer mechanism for DelayDAO (and by extension, DelayDCO) are a bit fragile, as one party has to wait for the full timeout before sending the message (e.g., N22 in this example) that the other party is waiting the timeout to receive (e.g., N11). So it seems like we are still susceptible to transport delay/jitter and race conditions at some point in the network, even if it's not the next-hop of the target node. But if that's a property of DelayDAO from RFC 6550, it doesn't really make sense to try to address it in this document (and it's also possible I misunderstand the situation). |
2019-06-25
|
12 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-06-25
|
12 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot discuss] I have a small discuss that should be easy to address: Sec 4.3: " The number of retries are implementation and deployment … [Ballot discuss] I have a small discuss that should be easy to address: Sec 4.3: " The number of retries are implementation and deployment dependent." (and also sec 4.4 point 6) Please specify a maximum number of retries and also a minimum retry interval (of e.g. 3 sec best with exponential back-off)! |
2019-06-25
|
12 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] One question on section 4.6.2: You present use of NPDAO and DCO as two options, however, the problem with the I flag is … [Ballot comment] One question on section 4.6.2: You present use of NPDAO and DCO as two options, however, the problem with the I flag is that the sender does not know if the ancestor understand the signal. Wouldn't it also make sense to use both in some cases, e.g. send DAO with I flag first and if you don't receive a DCO after some limited time, you also send the NPDAO? Nits: sec 1.2: s/so that the node changing it routing adjacencies/so that the node changing its routing adjacencies/ -> "it" instead of "its" |
2019-06-25
|
12 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-06-25
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-06-25
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-06-24
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] (Sorry, updated to add a second substantive comment that I forgot to put in the first time.) I have two substantive comments: — … [Ballot comment] (Sorry, updated to add a second substantive comment that I forgot to put in the first time.) I have two substantive comments: — Section 1 — Further a new pro-active route invalidation message called as "Destination Cleanup Object" (DCO) is specified which fulfills requirements of an optimized route invalidation messaging. It's a small thing, but given that this is a Standards Track document, but lots of it is not specifying a standard, I think it would be useful to call out the part that is. Maybe this way?: NEW Further, a new pro-active route invalidation message called as "Destination Cleanup Object" (DCO) is specified which fulfills requirements of an optimized route invalidation messaging. This Standards Track specification is in Section 4. END — Section 4.3 — With respect to the K flag, it’s clear from the description that if you set the K flag you expect a response and you’re likely to retry if you don’t get it. Cool. It’s clear that if you don’t set the K flag you might or might not get a reply, and are more likely to get a reply for an error. Also cool. What’s not clear is whether it’s reasonable to retry if you don’t get a reply, and you didn’t set the K flag. I suspect that it’s not reasonable, because you didn’t ask for a reply, and I think it would help to say that: something like, “When the sender does not set the ‘K’ flag it is an indication that the sender does not expect a response, and the sender SHOULD NOT retry the DCO.” The rest is a bunch of editorial comments, but only editorial comments. General: I’ll note that the RFC Editor will change all the section titles to title case. So, for example, “Invalidate routes of dependent nodes” will become “Invalidate Routes of Dependent Nodes”. It would not be a bad thing to make those changes now, to save the RFC Editor the time. — Abstract — The abstract reads very badly to my eyes. I think it comes from an effort to stuff it all into one sentence. The Introduction actually says it in two sentences, and I think that works lots better: This document explains the problems associated with the current use of NPDAO messaging and also discusses the requirements for an optimized route invalidation messaging scheme. Further a new pro-active route invalidation message called as "Destination Cleanup Object" (DCO) is specified which fulfills requirements of an optimized route invalidation messaging. — Section 1 — In “distance-vector-based routing scheme”, you need two hyphens, as shown here. RPL has an optional messaging in the form of DAO Here “messaging” is a modifier, but it’s not modifying anything. An optional messaging *what*? — you need a noun there. Or maybe you just need to remove “an”, which also fixes the problem. — Section 1.2 — so that the node changing it routing adjacencies can invalidate the previous route. “its routing adjacencies” (possessive) This is needed so that nodes along the previous path can release any resources (such as the routing entry) it maintains There’s a number mismatch here: “nodes” and “it maintains”. You probably want “they maintain”. — Section 1.3 — In the section title, you either need to make it not a question (“Why NPDAO Is Important”) or change the word order to be consistent with the question (“Why Is NPDAO Important?”). to better achieve resource utilization. I think “to better optimize resource utilization” is better. — Section 4.3 — DODAGID (optional): 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root that uniquely identifies a DODAG. This field MUST be present when the 'D' flag is set. It’s probably not a real issue, but it seems mildly odd to me to mark it “optional” and then say that it MUST be set sometimes. Probably just me. But maybe this?: NEW DODAGID: 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root that uniquely identifies a DODAG. This field MUST be present when the 'D' flag is set and is OPTIONAL otherwise. END (Also in Section 4.3.4) — Section 4.3.4 — If 'K' flag is not set then the receiver of the DCO message MAY send a DCO-ACK to signal an error condition. This should probably be made parallel to the description of the K flag above (and in 4.4 bullet 4 below), and say, “especially to report an error condition.” — Section 4.4 — 1. If a node sends a DCO message with newer or different information than the prior DCO message transmission, it MUST increment the DCOSequence field by at least one. A DCO message transmission that is identical to the prior DCO message transmission MAY increment the DCOSequence field. I’m starting this by saying that I don’t think you need to change anything here, but given that I’ve just polled several SSAC folks, simply because I happen to be at ICANN right now, about the specific meaning of “increment”, I have to relate this: All say that one can “increment by ”, and that’s fine. But we are divided on what “increment” without a number being specified means. Some say it means “by one” if you don’t specify. Others say that if you don’t specify, then the number is, well, unspecified and can be anything. In the text above, you say “by at least one” the first time, which is crystal clear. The second time you use “increment”, you don’t specify. Now, I’m groping here, but I wonder whether there could possibly be interoperability trouble caused by a recipient expecting an identical DCO message to have a DCOSequence that is the same or +1, but won’t tolerate an increase >1. No, probably not, probably not. You’re right; I can’t imagine this being a problem in practice. Never mind. (But if you care to, you might change “increment” to “increase” to get around this silly babble. Or not. As you choose.) I clearly have too much time on my hands. Nit: In bullet 5, “i.e.” needs a comma in front of it, as well as behind. Or, better, just remove “i.e.” and the sentence works perfectly well. — Section 4.5 — Nits: In bullet 2, “routing table is full thus resulting in an eviction of existing routing entry.” 1. There should be a comma before “thus”. 2. Remove “an” before “eviction”. 3. Put that removed “an” before “existing”. (Or, alternatively, make it “entries”, plural.) — Section 4.6.1 — Dependent nodes do not have any indication regarding if any of its parent nodes in turn have decided to switch their parent. Nits: There are a couple of number problems here. “Nodes” doesn’t match “its” (you need “their”). And “parent nodes” doesn’t match “their parent” (probably “their parents”, but maybe “any of their parents”). Similarly, the “its” in the subsequent sentence should be “their”. And “counterproductive” is one word. — Section 4.6.2 — Nits: “Moreover” needs a comma after it. In the second paragraph, “an alternate and more optimized way” should use “alternative” instead of alternate” (the distinction matter more in UK English than in US English). — Section 4.6.3 — Nits: “This documents recommends” should say “document” (singular). “all possible parent set” should say “sets” (plural). “requirement of synchronization” should say “requirement for synchronization”. — Section 7 — Nits: In the second paragraph, “if the ancestor nodes sees” should say “ancestor” (singular). And “Having said that” needs a comma after it. |
2019-06-24
|
12 | Barry Leiba | Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba |
2019-06-24
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] I have one substantive comment: — Section 4.3 — With respect to the K flag, it’s clear from the description that if you … [Ballot comment] I have one substantive comment: — Section 4.3 — With respect to the K flag, it’s clear from the description that if you set the K flag you expect a response and you’re likely to retry if you don’t get it. Cool. It’s clear that if you don’t set the K flag you might or might not get a reply, and are more likely to get a reply for an error. Also cool. What’s not clear is whether it’s reasonable to retry if you don’t get a reply, and you didn’t set the K flag. I suspect that it’s not reasonable, because you didn’t ask for a reply, and I think it would help to say that: something like, “When the sender does not set the ‘K’ flag it is an indication that the sender does not expect a response, and the sender SHOULD NOT retry the DCO.” The rest is a bunch of editorial comments, but only editorial comments. General: I’ll note that the RFC Editor will change all the section titles to title case. So, for example, “Invalidate routes of dependent nodes” will become “Invalidate Routes of Dependent Nodes”. It would not be a bad thing to make those changes now, to save the RFC Editor the time. — Abstract — The abstract reads very badly to my eyes. I think it comes from an effort to stuff it all into one sentence. The Introduction actually says it in two sentences, and I think that works lots better: This document explains the problems associated with the current use of NPDAO messaging and also discusses the requirements for an optimized route invalidation messaging scheme. Further a new pro-active route invalidation message called as "Destination Cleanup Object" (DCO) is specified which fulfills requirements of an optimized route invalidation messaging. — Section 1 — In “distance-vector-based routing scheme”, you need two hyphens, as shown here. RPL has an optional messaging in the form of DAO Here “messaging” is a modifier, but it’s not modifying anything. An optional messaging *what*? — you need a noun there. Or maybe you just need to remove “an”, which also fixes the problem. — Section 1.2 — so that the node changing it routing adjacencies can invalidate the previous route. “its routing adjacencies” (possessive) This is needed so that nodes along the previous path can release any resources (such as the routing entry) it maintains There’s a number mismatch here: “nodes” and “it maintains”. You probably want “they maintain”. — Section 1.3 — In the section title, you either need to make it not a question (“Why NPDAO Is Important”) or change the word order to be consistent with the question (“Why Is NPDAO Important?”). to better achieve resource utilization. I think “to better optimize resource utilization” is better. — Section 4.3 — DODAGID (optional): 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root that uniquely identifies a DODAG. This field MUST be present when the 'D' flag is set. It’s probably not a real issue, but it seems mildly odd to me to mark it “optional” and then say that it MUST be set sometimes. Probably just me. But maybe this?: NEW DODAGID: 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root that uniquely identifies a DODAG. This field MUST be present when the 'D' flag is set and is OPTIONAL otherwise. END (Also in Section 4.3.4) — Section 4.3.4 — If 'K' flag is not set then the receiver of the DCO message MAY send a DCO-ACK to signal an error condition. This should probably be made parallel to the description of the K flag above (and in 4.4 bullet 4 below), and say, “especially to report an error condition.” — Section 4.4 — 1. If a node sends a DCO message with newer or different information than the prior DCO message transmission, it MUST increment the DCOSequence field by at least one. A DCO message transmission that is identical to the prior DCO message transmission MAY increment the DCOSequence field. I’m starting this by saying that I don’t think you need to change anything here, but given that I’ve just polled several SSAC folks, simply because I happen to be at ICANN right now, about the specific meaning of “increment”, I have to relate this: All say that one can “increment by ”, and that’s fine. But we are divided on what “increment” without a number being specified means. Some say it means “by one” if you don’t specify. Others say that if you don’t specify, then the number is, well, unspecified and can be anything. In the text above, you say “by at least one” the first time, which is crystal clear. The second time you use “increment”, you don’t specify. Now, I’m groping here, but I wonder whether there could possibly be interoperability trouble caused by a recipient expecting an identical DCO message to have a DCOSequence that is the same or +1, but won’t tolerate an increase >1. No, probably not, probably not. You’re right; I can’t imagine this being a problem in practice. Never mind. (But if you care to, you might change “increment” to “increase” to get around this silly babble. Or not. As you choose.) I clearly have too much time on my hands. Nit: In bullet 5, “i.e.” needs a comma in front of it, as well as behind. Or, better, just remove “i.e.” and the sentence works perfectly well. — Section 4.5 — Nits: In bullet 2, “routing table is full thus resulting in an eviction of existing routing entry.” 1. There should be a comma before “thus”. 2. Remove “an” before “eviction”. 3. Put that removed “an” before “existing”. (Or, alternatively, make it “entries”, plural.) — Section 4.6.1 — Dependent nodes do not have any indication regarding if any of its parent nodes in turn have decided to switch their parent. Nits: There are a couple of number problems here. “Nodes” doesn’t match “its” (you need “their”). And “parent nodes” doesn’t match “their parent” (probably “their parents”, but maybe “any of their parents”). Similarly, the “its” in the subsequent sentence should be “their”. And “counterproductive” is one word. — Section 4.6.2 — Nits: “Moreover” needs a comma after it. In the second paragraph, “an alternate and more optimized way” should use “alternative” instead of alternate” (the distinction matter more in UK English than in US English). — Section 4.6.3 — Nits: “This documents recommends” should say “document” (singular). “all possible parent set” should say “sets” (plural). “requirement of synchronization” should say “requirement for synchronization”. — Section 7 — Nits: In the second paragraph, “if the ancestor nodes sees” should say “ancestor” (singular). And “Having said that” needs a comma after it. |
2019-06-24
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-06-22
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2019-06-22
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2019-06-20
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
2019-06-20
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
2019-06-20
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-06-20
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Telechat review by RTGDIR |
2019-06-19
|
12 | Min Ye | Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Mike McBride was withdrawn |
2019-06-19
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride |
2019-06-19
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride |
2019-06-19
|
12 | Min Ye | Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Eric Gray was marked no-response |
2019-06-10
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-06-27 |
2019-06-10
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party |
2019-06-10
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2019-06-10
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-06-10
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-06-03
|
12 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-12.txt |
2019-06-03
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-03
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2019-06-03
|
12 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-03
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | Waiting for WG Chairs confirmation. |
2019-06-03
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2019-05-31
|
11 | Shwetha Bhandari | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Shwetha Bhandari. Sent review to list. |
2019-05-29
|
11 | Michael Richardson | Assignment of request for Last Call review by IOTDIR to Michael Richardson was rejected |
2019-05-28
|
11 | Samita Chakrabarti | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Shwetha Bhandari |
2019-05-28
|
11 | Samita Chakrabarti | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Shwetha Bhandari |
2019-05-25
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-05-25
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-05-25
|
11 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-11.txt |
2019-05-25
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-25
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2019-05-25
|
11 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-22
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Michael Richardson |
2019-05-22
|
10 | Samita Chakrabarti | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Michael Richardson |
2019-05-21
|
10 | Brian Weis | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Brian Weis. Sent review to list. |
2019-05-21
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-05-21
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-05-21
|
10 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2019-05-21
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-05-20
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-05-20
|
10 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are five actions which we must complete. First, in the RPL Control Codes registry on the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/ four, new control codes are to be registered as follows: Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Destination Cleanup Object Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Destination Cleanup Object Acknowledgement Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Secure Destination Cleanup Object Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Secure Destination Cleanup Object Acknowledgement Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the Transit Information Option Flags registry also on the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/ a single, new flag is to be registered as follows: Bit Number: 1 Capability Description: Invalidate previous route (I) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Third, a new registry is to be created called the Destination Cleanup Object (DCO) Flags registry. IANA Question --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry page? If not, does it belong in an existing category at http://www.iana.org/protocols? The new registry will be managed via IETF Review as defined in RFC 8126. The registry will contain values between 0 to 255. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: +------------+------------------------------+---------------+ | Bit number | Description | Reference | +------------+------------------------------+---------------+ | 0 | DCO-ACK request (K) | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 1 | DODAGID field is present (D) | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 2-255 | Unassigned | | +------------+------------------------------+---------------+ Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the Destination Cleanup Object Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK) Status field registry. IANA Question --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry page? If not, does it belong in an existing category at http://www.iana.org/protocols? The new registry will be managed via IETF Review as defined in RFC 8126. The new registry will contain values between 0 to 255. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: +------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+ | Status | Description | Reference | | Code | | | +------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+ | 0 | Unqualified acceptance |[ RFC-to-be ]| | 1 | No routing-entry for the indicated |[ RFC-to-be ]| | | Target found | | | 2-255 | Unassigned | | +------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+ Fifth, a new registry is to be created called the Destination Cleanup Object Acknowledgement (DCO) Flags registry. IANA Question --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry page? If not, does it belong in an existing category at http://www.iana.org/protocols? The new registry will be managed via IETF Review as defined in RFC 8126. The new registry will contain values between 0 to 255. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: +------------+------------------------------+---------------+ | Bit number | Description | Reference | +------------+------------------------------+---------------+ | 0 | DODAGID field is present (D) | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 1-255 | Unassigned | | +------------+------------------------------+---------------+ The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-05-13
|
10 | Francis Dupont | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2019-05-12
|
10 | Min Ye | Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Dan Frost was rejected |
2019-05-12
|
10 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
2019-05-12
|
10 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
2019-05-09
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2019-05-09
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2019-05-09
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2019-05-09
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2019-05-08
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2019-05-08
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dan Frost |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dan Frost |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-05-21): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: consultancy@vanderstok.org, roll-chairs@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao@ietf.org, Peter … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-05-21): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: consultancy@vanderstok.org, roll-chairs@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao@ietf.org, Peter Van der Stok , aretana.ietf@gmail.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Efficient Route Invalidation) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: - 'Efficient Route Invalidation' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-05-21. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes the problems associated with No-Path Destination Advertisement Object (NPDAO) messaging used in Routing Protocol for Low power and lossy networks (RPL) for route invalidation and signaling changes to improve route invalidation efficiency. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2961/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3063/ |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by IOTDIR |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-05-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-04-27
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-04-27
|
10 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-10.txt |
2019-04-27
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-27
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2019-04-27
|
10 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-11
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-09: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/U5dTAIw-Gjv1NqUad32MpmlhWn4 |
2019-04-11
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2019-03-21
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2019-03-21
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Peter Van der Stok <consultancy@vanderstok.org>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Peter Van der Stok <consultancy@vanderstok.org> |
2018-11-05
|
09 | Peter Van der Stok | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Document is submitted as proposed standard: The document describes a protocol that supports a more rapid establishment of paths in the RPL DODAG, when a links fails frequently or permanently. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: (2a) Technical Summary This document describes the problems associated with NPDAO messaging used in RPL for route invalidation and signaling changes to improve route invalidation efficiency. (2b) Working Group Summary Once the usefulness of the document became clear to the WG, the solution was accepted as valid. Major arguments were conducted about the clearness of the text, and unnecessary actions in the protocol that are removed. (2c) Document Quality A pilot is implemented for a smart meter based solution which is deployed with Huawei's Enterprise Access Router (AR-series). The meter hardware is currently based on STM32F415 MCU with Atmel's 802.15.4 transceivers. No new media types are requested. A new RPL control packet is added. (2d) Personnel Document Shepherd is Peter van der Stok. Responsible Area Director is Alvaro Retana. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd has reviewed the document twice: (i) to get terminology simplified , correct and aligned with earlier documents, (ii) to point out under-specified parts in the protocol, such as time-out values, multiple choices that were not addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The shepherd thinks that reviews have been adequate for this document by the right persons. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document is RPL centered on a very specific aspect: path creation. No strong dependencies on other related technology areas are present. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific concerns exist. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Two IPR disclosures are filed. All authors have confirmed that all necessary IPR disclosures have been filed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Two IPR disclosures contain the standard disclosure text that is employed for IETF RFCs. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? All active members of the WG understand the draft and agree with it. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No extreme discontent was shown; no appeals are expected. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. All nits have been removed. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews such as MIB doctor, media type or URI type are required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references within this document have been identified as either normative or informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no normative references to documents in progress. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward references exist. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA consideration section allocates new ICMPv6 RPL control codes to RPL DCO and DCO-ack messages. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new IANA registries are specified. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No sections of the document contain text written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. |
2018-11-05
|
09 | Peter Van der Stok | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2018-11-05
|
09 | Peter Van der Stok | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-11-05
|
09 | Peter Van der Stok | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-11-05
|
09 | Peter Van der Stok | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-11-05
|
09 | Peter Van der Stok | Changed consensus to Yes from Yes |
2018-11-03
|
09 | Peter Van der Stok | Changed document writeup |
2018-11-02
|
09 | Ines Robles | Added to session: IETF-103: roll Mon-0900 |
2018-10-17
|
09 | Peter Van der Stok | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-15
|
09 | Peter Van der Stok | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-14
|
09 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-09.txt |
2018-10-14
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-14
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2018-10-14
|
09 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-14
|
08 | Peter Van der Stok | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-14
|
08 | Peter Van der Stok | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-14
|
08 | Peter Van der Stok | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-10-14
|
08 | Peter Van der Stok | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-10-09
|
08 | Peter Van der Stok | Changed document writeup |
2018-09-30
|
08 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-08.txt |
2018-09-30
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-30
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2018-09-30
|
08 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-27
|
07 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-07.txt |
2018-09-27
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-27
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2018-09-27
|
07 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-26
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2018-09-26
|
07 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-26
|
06 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-06.txt |
2018-09-26
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-26
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2018-09-26
|
06 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-29
|
05 | Ines Robles | Notification list changed to Peter Van der Stok <consultancy@vanderstok.org> |
2018-08-29
|
05 | Ines Robles | Document shepherd changed to Peter Van der Stok |
2018-08-29
|
05 | Ines Robles | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2018-08-24
|
05 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-05.txt |
2018-08-24
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-24
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2018-08-24
|
05 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-19
|
04 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-04.txt |
2018-07-19
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-19
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2018-07-19
|
04 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-14
|
03 | Ines Robles | Added to session: IETF-102: roll Tue-0930 |
2018-03-29
|
03 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-03.txt |
2018-03-29
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-29
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2018-03-29
|
03 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-21
|
02 | Ines Robles | Removed from session: IETF-101: roll Thu-0930 |
2018-03-21
|
02 | Ines Robles | Added to session: IETF-101: roll Fri-0930 |
2018-03-21
|
02 | Ines Robles | Added to session: IETF-101: roll Thu-0930 |
2018-03-21
|
02 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-02.txt |
2018-03-21
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-21
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: roll-chairs@ietf.org, Rahul Jadhav , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2018-03-21
|
02 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-12
|
01 | Ines Robles | Added to session: IETF-100: roll Wed-1330 |
2017-10-18
|
01 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01.txt |
2017-10-18
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-18
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: JADHAV RAHUL , Rabi Sahoo , Zhen Cao |
2017-10-18
|
01 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-06
|
Jasmine Magallanes | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao | |
2017-07-04
|
00 | Ines Robles | Added to session: IETF-99: roll Thu-1330 |
2017-06-27
|
00 | Ines Robles | This document now replaces draft-jadhav-roll-efficient-npdao instead of None |
2017-06-27
|
00 | Rahul Jadhav | New version available: draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-00.txt |
2017-06-27
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-06-27
|
00 | Rahul Jadhav | Set submitter to "Rahul Arvind Jadhav ", replaces to draft-jadhav-roll-efficient-npdao and sent approval email to group chairs: roll-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-06-27
|
00 | Rahul Jadhav | Uploaded new revision |