Subject: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-09

From: Tero Kivinen via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:41:13 -0700

Reviewer: Tero Kivinen
Review result: Has Nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
 Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

The title of the draft has some acronyms which are not expanded (AODV, P2P) and
if you expand them the title comes way too long. I would propose a usable
title, which might not need to use all possible acronyms, but would better
explain what this document is trying to do.

This draft defines a new mode of operation to the allow peer to peer on demand
routing in low power and lossy networks. I have not enough knowledge of RPL to
really know how the new mode differs from the old methods. The security
considerations section points to the RFC6550, and then explains that if rogue
router has key it can do all kind of things.

Nits:

In section 1 the text "RPL [RFC6550] (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy
Networks)" defines acronyms differently than what is used everywhere else. In
all other cases the document uses format where the acronym is in parenthesis
after the full text, i.e. "Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
(RPL) [RFC6550]" format. I would propose using the same format also for here.

In section 1 there is acronym DAG which is not expanded, expand it on first
use. Also there are unexpanded acronyms DAO, P2MP, which are not used anywhere
else, perhaps just expand them here. In same paragraph there is also acronym
MOP which is not expanded here on its first use, but it is expanded later.
Expand it here on its first use.

What is the difference between different reserve bits X and r in sections
4.1/4.2 and 4.3?

Period missing from the end of sentence of the Option Length description in
Section 4.3.

In the IANA considerations section I propose add a note to RFC editor saying
that the sentences saying " The parenthesized numbers are only suggestions."
needs to be removed prior publication.

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2021 10:39:53 -0700

Hello Tero,

Thanks for your comments, useful as always.  Please see a bit of 
follow-up below.

> explain what this document is trying to do.

How about "Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks"? Replacing 
"LLNs" by "Low Power Networks" is probably O.K. because lossy is almost 
implicit given low power (or, often, reality).

> (RPL) [RFC6550]" format. I would propose using the same format also for here.
Done.

> use.
I think that sentence reads better just omitting DAG.

>   Also there are unexpanded acronyms DAO, P2MP, which are not used anywhere

Done, except that I thought it would be better to exhibit the acronym 
DAO since it is well known to readers familiar with RPL.

> What is the difference between different reserve bits X and r in sections
I made them all to be reserved bits 'X'.

> Period missing from the end of sentence of the Option Length description in
Done.

> needs to be removed prior publication.

Done!

Naturally Yours,
Charlie P.

---

From: "S.V.R.Anand" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:03:05 +0530

Hello, 

I prefer to retain AODV-RPL in the title. AODV-RPL acronym has already
been referred by research community in their publications, and roll
community uses this acronym to refer to this draft. Also, I feel AODV
and RPL acronyms are familiar to the wireless and low power and lossy
networks world. 

How about "AODV-RPL Extensions for Asymmetric Links in Low Power
Networks", or "AODV-RPL Support for Asymmetric Links in LLNs" ?

Regards
Anand

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:14:53 +0300

> implicit given low power (or, often, reality).

Thats much better. From that I can even understand what is the
difference between this and previous work, i.e., that the important
difference is the asymmetric, not p2p or aodv etc...

-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: satish anamalamudi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:03:12 +0530

Dear all,

In my opinion, it is good to include AODV-RPL acronym within the title of
the draft.

Regards,
Satish

-- 

*With Regards,*

*Dr. Satish Anamalamudi, PhD.,*

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 21:33:23 -0700

Hello Satish,

How about "Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks: AODV-RPL"?

It still fits on one line, and seems to resolve your request as well as 
Tero's request.

Naturally Yours,
Charlie P.

On 3/30/2021 5:33 PM, satish anamalamudi wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> In my opinion, it is good to include AODV-RPL acronym within the title 
> of the draft.
>
> Regards,
> Satish
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:03 AM S.V.R.Anand <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *

---

From: satish anamalamudi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:43:28 +0530

Hello Charlie,

Yes, the AODV-RPL draft is mainly proposed to support asymmetric link in
constrained LLN network. Implementation of asymmetric links is crucial in
constrained network resources.

Regards,
Satish

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:03 AM Charlie Perkins <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> *Dr. Satish Anamalamudi, PhD., *
>
>
> --

*With Regards,*

---

From: satish anamalamudi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:05:15 +0530

Hi,

I am supporting with charlie new title.

Regards,
Satish

*With Regards,*