A Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header
RFC 9035
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
Erik Kline No Objection
Martin Duke (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. I found last paragraph of Section 3 confusing. I suggest the following change: OLD: 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, the compression MUST be used by default regardless of the setting of the "T" flag. NEW: "Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in the DIO Base Object. This specification adds codepoint 7 to the registry for this field. For a MOP value of 7, the compression MUST be used by default regardless of the setting of the "T" flag.“
Murray Kucherawy No Objection
The glossary lists "OF" and "OCP", but those acronyms are not present in the document. I had to do some bouncing between documents while reading Section 3. Figure 1 shows what appear to be five flags, not four, and says "T" is declared in "position 2", though in the diagram it looks like the third position. If position numbering is zero-based, that should be made clear (it's not in RFC 6550 either).
Robert Wilton No Objection
Roman Danyliw No Objection
Section 5. Typo. s/an homogenous/a homogeneous/ Section 7. Editorial. To be clearer on where the attacker is in the topology and on who is incurring the cost: OLD An attacker in the middle of the network may reset the "T" flag to cause extra energy spending in its subDAG. NEW An on-path attacker may reset the “T” flag to force additional energy consumption by the nodes in the subDAG.
Warren Kumari No Objection
Thanks to Nagendra for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-10-opsdir-lc-nainar-2020-08-17/ ) and to the authors for working to address these. This has made the document clearer and better - thank you!
Éric Vyncke No Objection
Thank you for the work put into this document. Carles Gomez has done a Last Call IoT directorate review at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/_UG_q8yutQU28ldYK1cdySTQoNs and had a couple of nits and comments that were discussed and implemented. Thank you Carles for the review and thank you Pascal for updating the document accordingly. I have only one comment/suggestion below. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric -- Section 5 -- I find this text confusing at first read "adding nodes that do not support [RFC8138] after a roll back may be problematic if the roll back did not fully complete" I had to read section 5.3 to fully understand it. Should something like ", the network operator must ensure that the roll back operation is completed before adding nodes that do not support RFC 8138" be easier to understand ?
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
Just a couple of very minor comments: “RPL” should be expanded on first use. We should probably ask the RFC Editor to mark “DAG” and “DODAG” as “well known”, but they are not yet so marked, so “DODAG” should be expanded on first use. — Section 5.3 — It is RECOMMENDED to only deploy nodes that support [RFC8138] in a network where the compression is turned on. I think I misread this the first time; it’s ambiguous, so please reword it to make this clear. What is it that’s recommended?: 1. In a network where compression is turned on, only deploy nodes that support 8138? 2. Don’t deploy nodes that support 8138 unless compression is turned on? — Section 7 — An attacker in the middle of the network may reset the "T" flag Thank you for this phrasing; I like it.
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my Discuss (and Comment) points!
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection