RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
RFC 6550

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14 19 (System) Notify list changed from roll-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-rpl@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22 19 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Robert Sparks
2012-08-22 19 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko
2012-08-22 19 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2012-08-22 19 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ralph Droms
2012-08-22 19 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2012-08-22 19 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ronald Bonica
2012-03-27 19 (System) RFC published
2011-04-15 19 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2011-04-15 19 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2011-04-15 19 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2011-04-08 19 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2011-03-30 19 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-03-30 19 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-03-29 19 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-03-29 19 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2011-03-29 19 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-03-29 19 Cindy Morgan Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-03-29 19 Adrian Farrel Approval announcement text changed
2011-03-29 19 Adrian Farrel Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-03-29 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
I've cleared my DISCUSS.  Some of my COMMENTs still apply to
rev -19, and I've moved a former DISCUSS issue ...
2011-03-29 19 Ralph Droms [Ballot discuss]
2011-03-29 19 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-03-25 19 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-03-22 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
I have decided to clear my Discuss after the changes in -19 added text that describes what parts of RPL and other documents ...
2011-03-22 19 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-03-17 19 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-03-14 19 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-19.txt
2011-03-02 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on March 2nd to reflect the latest situation. I am working on
text suggestions to fix the remaining issues. Stay tuned.)

This ...
2011-03-02 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on March 2nd to reflect the latest situation. I am working on
text suggestions to fix the remaining issues.)

This is a ...
2011-03-02 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on December 23rd to reflect current document and all the
other information we've received in the meantime.)

This is a well ...
2011-03-02 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on December 23rd to reflect current document and all the
other information we've received in the meantime.)

This is a well ...
2011-03-02 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on December 23rd to reflect current document and all the
other information we've received in the meantime.)

This is a well ...
2011-03-02 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on December 23rd to reflect current document and all the
other information we've received in the meantime.)

This is a well ...
2011-02-25 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on December 23rd to reflect current document and all the
other information we've received in the meantime.)

This is a well ...
2011-02-08 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
C8. The definition of DAO-ACK rejection codes seems unclear to me:

        Status 0 is unqualified
        ...
2011-02-08 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
Edited to reflect issues that have been resolved or updated based on rev -18.

D2. The RPL Prefix Information option (PIO) is based ...
2011-02-08 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
C8. The definition of DAO-ACK rejection codes seems unclear to me:

        Status 0 is unqualified
        ...
2011-02-08 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
Edited to reflect issues that have been resolved or updated based on rev -18.

D2. The RPL Prefix Information option (PIO) is based ...
2011-02-04 19 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-02-04 18 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-18.txt
2010-12-23 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on December 23rd to reflect current document and all the
other information we've received in the meantime.)

This is a well ...
2010-12-23 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on December 23rd to reflect current document and all the
other information we've received in the meantime.)

This is a well ...
2010-12-23 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on December 23rd to reflect current document and all the
other information we've received in the meantime.)

This is a well ...
2010-12-23 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
(Updated on December 23rd to reflect current document and all the
other information we've received in the meantime.)

This is a well ...
2010-12-22 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
Edited to reflect issues that have been resolved or updated based on rev -17.

C7. The definitions of the 'K', 'D' and 'Flags ...
2010-12-22 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
Edited to reflect issues that have been resolved or updated based on rev -17.

D2. The RPL Prefix Information option (PIO) is based ...
2010-12-15 17 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-17.txt
2010-12-14 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
[Revised to exclude issues resolved in -15 and -16, and **adding one new issue covering
the new text on RFC 3610**.  Thanks ...
2010-12-14 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
[Revised to exclude issues resolved in -15 and -16, and **adding one new issue covering the new text on RFC 3610**.
Thanks for ...
2010-12-14 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
[Revised to exclude issues resolved in -15 and -16, and **adding one new issue covering the new text on RFC 3610**.
Thanks for ...
2010-12-14 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
[Revised to exclude issues resolved in -15 and -16, and **adding one new issue covering the new text on RFC 3610**.
Thanks for ...
2010-12-14 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
The Security Considerations includes the following text:

  Replay protection is provided via the use of a non-repeating value
  (nonce) in the ...
2010-12-14 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
[Revised to exclude issues resolved in -15 and -16, and **adding one new issue covering the new text on RFC 3610**.
Thanks for ...
2010-12-09 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
[Revised to exclude issues resolved in -15 and -16.  Thanks for the many clarifications!]

Overall, I found this to be a well ...
2010-12-09 16 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-16.txt
2010-12-07 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
[Revised to exclude issues resolved in -15 and note issues where general agreement exists for -16.  Thanks for
the many clarifications!]

Overall ...
2010-11-10 19 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ron Bonica has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ron Bonica
2010-11-09 19 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2010-11-08 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
[Revised to exclude issues resolved in -15.  Thanks for the many clrifications!]

Overall, I found this to be a well written document ...
2010-11-08 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
[revised to exclude issues resolved in -15]

Overall, I found this to be a well written document.  However, I did find a ...
2010-11-07 19 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-11-07 15 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-15.txt
2010-10-29 19 Adrian Farrel State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel
2010-10-25 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
D1. draft-ietf-roll-rpl-12 refers to draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-00 as
    a normative reference.  It appears that the definitions for the
    contents of ...
2010-10-25 14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-14.txt
2010-10-25 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
C2. Does RPL assume symmetric reachability across a link or can it support
    asymmetric reachability?

C7. The definitions of the 'K ...
2010-10-25 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
D1. draft-ietf-roll-rpl-12 refers to draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-00 as
    a normative reference.  It appears that the definitions for the
    contents of ...
2010-10-24 19 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu
2010-10-22 19 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-10-22 13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-13.txt
2010-10-21 19 Amy Vezza State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer::Revised ID Needed by Amy Vezza
2010-10-21 19 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-21 19 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
This is a well written document and I was positively surprised that
it is in relatively good shape. I did have a number ...
2010-10-21 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
draft-ietf-roll-rpl-12 refers to draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-00 as a
normative reference.  It appears that the definitions for the contents
of the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop RPL option ...
2010-10-21 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
In my opinion, RPL is tied into the IP forwarding layer in a couple of
important ways.  Foe example, if I understand ...
2010-10-21 19 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
Overall, I found this to be a well written document.  However, I did find a number of issues that should be addressed ...
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
Overall, I found this to be a well written document.  However, I did find a number of issues that should be addressed ...
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
In section 6.1, the text on the security level should note that the values are not necessarily ordered.  The initial
set ...
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
Overall, I found this to be a well written document.  However, I did find a number of issues that should be addressed ...
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
In section 6.1

In 18.1: I believe the word "neither" should be deleted from paragraph 1, sentence 4

OLD
  it ...
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
Overall, I found this to be a well written document.  However, I did find a number of issues that should be addressed ...
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
Overall, I found this to be a well written document.  However, I did find a number of issues that should be addressed ...
2010-10-21 19 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
I support Tim's discuss.
2010-10-21 19 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-10-21 19 Ron Bonica
[Ballot discuss]
Like Ralph, I am concerned about reliance on hop-by-hop options. Normally, I would let Ralph hold the discuss, but since this is a ...
2010-10-21 19 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
Overall, I found this to be a well written document.  However, I did find a number of issues that should be addressed ...
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
Overall, I found this to be a well written document.  However, I did find a number of issues that should be addressed ...
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
In 18.1: I believe the word "neither" should be deleted from paragraph 1, sentence 4

OLD
  it cannot always be assumed ...
2010-10-21 19 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
Overall, I found this to be a well written document.  However, I did find a number of issues that should be addressed ...
2010-10-21 19 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-10-20 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
Is RPL intended only for multi-link subnet networks that share a
single set of prefixes across the entire LLN?

Does RPL assume symmetric ...
2010-10-20 19 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
In my opinion, RPL is tied into the IP forwarding layer in a couple of
important ways.  Foe example, if I understand ...
2010-10-20 19 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2010-10-20 19 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-10-20 19 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
I'm not finding guidance for implementations on what to do when
the extension points in the Security Level in 6.1 are ...
2010-10-20 19 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-10-20 19 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot comment]
S3.8 - "RPL avoids creating loops when undergoing topology changes and includes rank-based datapath validation mechanisms for detecting  loops when they do occur ...
2010-10-20 19 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant
2010-10-20 19 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
1. It seems to me that 17.2.2 and the following sub-sections have an indentation problem - i.e. 17.2.3, 17 ...
2010-10-20 19 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
1. I salute the manageability consideration section which is well written and detailed. However, I am missing some of the manageability functionality that ...
2010-10-20 19 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-10-06 19 Ralph Droms State changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Ralph Droms
2010-10-04 19 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-10-01 19 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2010-10-01 19 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel
2010-10-01 19 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2010-10-01 12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-12.txt
2010-09-18 19 Adrian Farrel Telechat date was changed to 2010-10-07 from 2010-09-23 by Adrian Farrel
2010-09-02 19 Sam Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tina Tsou.
2010-09-02 19 Amy Vezza State changed to IESG Evaluation from In Last Call by Amy Vezza
2010-08-31 19 Amanda Baber
IANA has questions about this document.

This document, upon approval, will require significant coordination
between the editors and IANA. IANA expects to have many IANA ...
2010-08-29 19 Adrian Farrel Telechat date was changed to 2010-09-23 from 2010-09-09 by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-20 19 Sam Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou
2010-08-18 19 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2010-08-18 19 Cindy Morgan State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-18 19 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-09-09 by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-18 19 Adrian Farrel Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-18 19 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-08-18 19 (System) Last call text was added
2010-08-18 19 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-08-18 19 Adrian Farrel State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-15 19 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-15 19 Adrian Farrel Held pending resolution of Downref.
2010-08-15 19 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-03 19 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'David Culler (culler@eecs.berkeley.edu) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-03 19 Cindy Morgan
Intended status : Standard Track

> (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
>        Document Shepherd ...
2010-08-03 19 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2010-07-29 11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-11.txt
2010-06-28 10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-10.txt
2010-06-12 09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-09.txt
2010-05-28 08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08.txt
2010-03-08 07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07.txt
2010-02-03 06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06.txt
2009-12-08 05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-05.txt
2009-10-26 04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-04.txt
2009-10-06 03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-03.txt
2009-09-23 02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-02.txt
2009-09-15 01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-01.txt
2009-08-03 00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-roll-rpl-00.txt