Dear all, The proposed update is fine with us (Shwetha and Carles), considering the 53 ARO status values that would still be available. There appear to be no backwards issues either.
Would anyone in the 6Lo WG (or anyone receiving this email) have any concerns with the proposal below by Pascal and folks? If yes, please do chime in! Thanks, Shwetha and Carles > Dear all : > > As you may know, draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves is blocking the whole > cluster C130 https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C310 and we > want to ship it now (WG milestone: Mar 2020 - Initial submission). The > issue we have with it is the fact that we allow encapsulate the ARO status > in a RPL status and we need bits to signal that. > > To free the necessary bits the proposal on the table is to reduce the > possible values for the ARO status to 0-63. > This can be done by a simple IANA action that can be taken from > draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves but we wanted to ensure that both ROLL and > 6lo agree with the proposal: > > > 12.1. Resizing the ARO Status values > > IANA is requested to modify the Address Registration Option Status > Values Registry as follows: The unassigned values range is reduced > from 11-255 to 11-63. > > > NB: this will free 2 bits in the Extended Address Registration Option and > the Extended Duplicate Address Message, could become handy in the future. > > Is there an issue with this that we are missing? > > Pascal > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
