ROLL Interim Meeting - 22 May 2024 - 2pm UTC

• Chairs: Dominique, Aris, Ines

• This meeting aligns with the Note Well, please read it carefully
  https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/

• This meeting will be recorded
• • Material:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-roll-03/session/roll

Agenda:

Time (UTC) - Duration - Draft/Topic - Presenter
14:00 - 14:05 (5 min) - WG Introduction - Chairs
14:05 - 14:30 (25 min) - Status: draft-ietf-roll-rnfd-03 -
Chairs/Authors
14:30 - 14:40 (10 min) - Status: draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-11
-Chairs/Authors
14:40 - 14:48 (8 min) - Status: draft-ietf-roll-mopex-07 -
Chairs/Authors
14:48 - 14:58 (10 min) - Status: draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-12
-Chairs/Authors
14:58 - 15:00 (2 min) - Open Floor - Everyone

Notes

WG Introduction

[14:03] NoteWell, notetaking, Aris new co-chair

draft-ietf-roll-rnfd-03

[14:05]

• Importance of LBR

  • But, they do crash

• So what happens when they do crash?

  • All incoming links need to be detected as dead, so it takes
    time, esp. when it is low traffic case
  • Multiple parent changes, inconsistent touting, trickle timer
    resets

• What is the proposal

  • Explicit coordination to monitor LBR
  • Do not proble all links
  • Selective checking of crash

• How does it work?

  • Sentinel node

    • Neighbors to DODAG root that monitor root status (a subset
      of all neighbors)

  • Acceptor node

    • Propagate observations

• Basic ideas

  • Sentinels detect crashed
  • Exchange info via DIO + DIS
  • Consensus of dead-ness of root based on number of sentinels
    agreeing

• Previous reviews in v02

• Some of the bigger changes

  • Provide alternative solutions and interaction with this draft
  • Handling false positives
  • Changing the length of CFRCs
  • Thresholds?

• Next steps?

  • Address the comments from Carles

• Chairs: We can progress with WGLC

  • 2 weeks
  • Michael Richardson: shepherd

    • Has already done a part, will revise it if necessary
      ### draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-11 {#draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-11}

      [14:21]

• Security issues addressed

• Michael: WGLC ?
• Chairs: OK for WGLC

draft-ietf-roll-mopex-07

[14:22]

• WIP

• Reusing the bits a bit unclear on how to operate

  • Reserve the old MOP values in the new MOPEX field
  • To be used as new flavor of old mode (some options made
    mandatory, etc.)

• As Dominique understood it, Pascal is suggesting to make better use
  of bits

  • if MOP contains 0..6, use existence of MOPEX and value of MOPEX
    field as extra information bit
  • for example, the MOPEX field could contain version number of old
    mode

• not well understood, what if a node implementation does not know the
  new option?

• How to manage the transition
• How to / if to use the old values
• TODO: Dominique will ask Pascal to clarify his proposals
• Chairs: Wait for answer from Pascal

draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-12

[14:33]

• Draft stand by
• Addressing Comments: the proposal from Pascal, and make it more
  generic
• Draft proposes a way, to get high reliability, extend MRHOF,
• We do what MRHOF does, extract dependencies
• new version, that can be done in generic form

Open Floor

[14:36]

• Closing Meeting