Hello Pascal, Thanks for addressing my comments! Answering to your subsequent email, I believe that the document is now ready for revision -10. All the best, Carles > Many thanks for your review Carles! > > > > Please see below: > > > >> Some nits/questions/comments follow: > >> > >> - Section 2.1, 1st paragraph: s/The Terminology/The terminology > >> > >> - Section 2.1, 2nd paragraph, first line: s/"RPL Instanceâ??/and â??RPL >> Instanceâ?? > >> > >> - Section 2.1, 3rd paragraph: s/RPL Aware Leaf/RPL-Aware Leaf > > > > Done > > > >> > >> - Section 2.2: note that the use of hyphens in the expanded forms of RAL >> and > >> RUL are different from those in draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo. (I think >> the correct > >> form is the one in the turnon-rfc8138 document, but I guess this will >> be > >> confirmed at subsequent stagesâ?¦) > > > > See also https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18 > > We need to converge and I agree that the hyphened version is correct. > > Let us start here ð??? > > > > > >> - Section 3: â??A MOP value of 7 and aboveâ??. If the MOP is a 3-bit >> field, the > >> highest MOP value is 7 (assuming that the lowest value is 0). Why state >> here > >> "and above"? Are there plans to extend the MOP field size? > > > > Yes, there is. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01. > This is why. Yet what you are saying makes sense, as written it cannot go > beyond 7. I can change to "(and above when extended)" > > > > > >> - Section 3, after â??A MOP value of 7 and aboveâ??. s/MUST use > >> compression/indicates that compression MUST be used > > > > The following text > > " > > Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) > > in the DIO Base Object. For MOP values 0 to 6, the use of compression > is > > as specified in this document. A MOP value of 7 MUST use compression > by > > default and ignore the setting of the â??Tâ?? flag. > > > > " > > was suggested by Alvaro during his A-D review. But I believe that your > proposal does not alter the meaning so I'm picking it. > > > > Resulting sentence: > > " > > 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 (and above when extended), the compression > > MUST be used by default regardless of the setting of the "T" flag." > > > > > >> - Section 4, 1st paragraph: â??if and only if the "T" flag is set.â?? >> Should we > >> perhaps append â??or if the MOP value is 7.â?? ? > > > > With the change above, I believe that we are good. > > > > > >> - Section 4, 1st paragraph: s/implementations/implementation > > > > Done > > > >> - Section 4, 3rd paragraph: What is the "RPL border router"? I couldn't >> find a > >> definition in the Terminology section or in other documents... May the >> "RPL > >> border router" and the Root run in the same physical device? May the >> "RPL > >> border router" and the Root run in different physical devices? > > > > Here we mean by border router the 6LR that serves the external route at > the leaf edge. > > > > Proposed Clarification: > > " > > An external target [USEofRPLinfo] is not expected to support > > [RFC8138]. In most cases, packets from and to an external target are > > tunneled back and forth between the border router (referred to as > > 6LR) that serves the external target and the Root, regardless of the > > MOP used in the RPL DODAG. The inner packet is typically not > > compressed with [RFC8138], so for outgoing packets, the border router > > just needs to decapsulate the (compressed) outer header and forward > > the (uncompressed) inner packet towards the external target. > > " > > > > > >> - Section 4, 3rd paragraph: the last sentence is written only from the >> â??fromâ?? > >> perspective, whereas the previous one is keeps the double "from/to" > >> perspective. > > > > True > > > >> > >> - Section 4, last paragraph, 1st sentence. Please remove the blank space >> at the > >> end of the sentence. > > > > Done > > > >> > >> - Section 5, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. Perhaps prepend the >> following: > >> â??Without this specification, â?? > > > > Generalizing to any signaling: > > " > > Enabling the [RFC8138] compression > > without a turn-on signaling requires a "flag day"; all nodes must be > > upgraded, and then the network can be rebooted with the [RFC8138] > > compression turned on. > > " > > > > > > " > >> > >> - Section 7, last sentence. Might this still be exploited as an attack >> (e.g. to > >> battery-operated devices) based on depleting energy at a faster rate? >> If > >> appropriate, please briefly discuss whether this might be significant or >> not. > > > > Added > > " > > An attacker in the middle of the network may reset the "T" flag to > cause > > extra energy spending in its subDAG. Conversely it may set the "T" > flag, so > > that nodes located downstream would compress when that it is not > desired, > > potentially resulting in the loss of packets. In a tree structure, > the > > attacker would be in position to drop the packets from and to the > attacked > > nodes. So the attacks above would be more complex and more visible > than > > simply dropping selected packets. The downstream node may have other > > parents and see both settings, which could raise attention. > > " > > > > Does that work? > > > > I pushed the diffs here: > > > > https://github.com/roll-wg/roll-turnon-rfc8138/commit/9f5b90e44c45f2a5003e50cf927c2047ee6fbdbf > > > > Again, many thanks Carles! > > > > Pascal > -- > Iot-directorate mailing list > Iot-directorate@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
