Minutes interim-2024-roll-01: Thu 13:00
minutes-interim-2024-roll-01-202401251300-00
| Meeting Minutes | Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) WG Snapshot | |
|---|---|---|
| Date and time | 2024-01-25 13:00 | |
| Title | Minutes interim-2024-roll-01: Thu 13:00 | |
| State | Active | |
| Other versions | markdown | |
| Last updated | 2023-11-13 |
ROLL IETF 118 - Preliminary Agenda
Meeting Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/session/roll
Meetecho:https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf118/?session=31755
Wednesday, 8th November, Session II
| Time | Topic | Presenter |
|---|---|---|
| 13:00 - 13:15 | WG Introduction | Ines/Dominique |
| 13:15 - 13:25 | draft-ietf-roll-rnfd | Chairs/Authors |
| 13:25 - 13:35 | draft-ietf-roll-mopex | Chairs/Authors |
| 13:35 - 13:45 | draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority | Chairs/Authors |
| 13:45 - 13:55 | draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension | Chairs/Authors |
| 13:55 - 14:00 | Open Floor | Everyone |
1) Introduction (15 minutes):
- status
Sue and John acknowledge that they have been behind on certain todo items.
MCR: encourages Virtual interim meetings to pick dates.
MIC: 1pm UTC is 5am California?
We do some doodle polls to pick times
(MCR: we could pick some different times for subsequent meetings)
Have a session at IETF119 Brisbane? MCR probably not
Pascal: different time zones might bring new participants in
2) draft-ietf-roll-rnfd (10 minutes):
3) draft-ietf-roll-mopex
what does it mean for the extended field to have the old values? Same thing, or almost same with new options enabled?
Now it is an issue https://github.com/roll-wg/mopex/issues/12 .
Pascal: Same value, but includes v2 support.
MCR: make them RESERVED-foobar-v2, since we haven't defined v2 exactly yet.
4) draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority (10 minutes):
Only issue #17 still open on MCR's side.
Rest are done.
5) draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension (10 minutes):
(did not catch conversation about issue involving MrHOF) (Dominique will fill this in after the meeting)
* submit to IESG.
* Pascall: could have used infinite rank.
* Remous-Aris(RA): if we make it generic, then we don't wind up with anything concrete.
* Pascall: "in the case of NSA, the objective function also has to do X"
Discussion about whether or not it makes sense to base work on MRHOF, which has not been well liked by industry.
The NSA goals are not to create a new objective function, but rather than work with any objective function to enhance what is computed.
D: MRHOF does a lot more than compute the rank!
RA: will take a few weeks to try implementing this new idea.
6) Open Floor (5 minutes)
Discussion about if DAO-projection should be marked experimental?
Pascal: this is not revising the protocol, but augmenting it, so it's incremental.
Sue: not complaining about the additional features, but rather asking the operational question: has this been prototyped yet?
Pascal: have not built this out yet.
John: BGP high risk and large scale, RPL not so much. Different standards on requiring implementation might apply.
MCR: RPL for long latency deep-space networking. Side meeting yestersday, not recording. Another side meeting tomorrow. See the slides. About QUIC on long delay networks.