< draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-04.txt   draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-05.txt >
ROLL Working Group M. Richardson ROLL Working Group M. Richardson
Internet-Draft Sandelman Software Works Internet-Draft Sandelman Software Works
Intended status: Standards Track R.A. Jadhav Intended status: Standards Track R.A. Jadhav
Expires: 11 August 2021 Huawei Tech Expires: 10 February 2022 Huawei Tech
P. Thubert P. Thubert
H. She H. She
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
7 February 2021 9 August 2021
Controlling Secure Network Enrollment in RPL networks Controlling Secure Network Enrollment in RPL networks
draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-04 draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-05
Abstract Abstract
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon] defines a method by [I-D.ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon] defines a method by
which a potential [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] enrollment proxy which a potential [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] enrollment proxy
can announce itself as a available for new Pledges to enroll on a can announce itself as a available for new Pledges to enroll on a
network. The announcement includes a priority for enrollment. This network. The announcement includes a priority for enrollment. This
document provides a mechanism by which a RPL DODAG root can disable document provides a mechanism by which a RPL DODAG root can disable
enrollment announcements, or adjust the base priority for enrollment enrollment announcements, or adjust the base priority for enrollment
operation. operation.
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 August 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 February 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Motivation and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Protocol Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Upwards compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Protocol Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Upwards compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Change history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix A. Change history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC7554] describes the use of the time-slotted channel hopping [RFC7554] describes the use of the time-slotted channel hopping
(TSCH) mode of [ieee802154]. [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] and (TSCH) mode of [ieee802154]. [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] and
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join] describe mechanisms by which [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join] describe mechanisms by which
a new node (the "pledge)" can use a friendly router as a Join Proxy. a new node (the "pledge)" can use a friendly router as a Join Proxy.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon] describes an extension [I-D.ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon] describes an extension
to the 802.15.4 Enhanced Beacon that is used by a Join Proxy to to the 802.15.4 Enhanced Beacon that is used by a Join Proxy to
announce its existence such that Pledges can find them. announce its existence such that Pledges can find them.
The term (1)"Join" has been used in documents like 1.1. Motivation and Overview
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] to denote the activity of a new
node authenticating itself to the network in order to obtain
authorization to become a member of the network. This typically
involves a cryptographic authentication protocol in which a network
credential is provided.
In the context of the [RFC6550] RPL protocol, the term (2)"Join" has
an alternate meaning: that of a node (already authenticating to the
network, and already authorized to be a member of the network),
deciding which part of the RPL DODAG to attach to. This term "Join"
has to do with parent selection processes.
In order to avoid the ambiguity of this term, this document refers to
the process (1)"Join" as enrollment, leaving the term "Join" to mean
(2)"Join". The term "onboarding" (or IoT Onboarding) is sometimes
used to describe the enrollment process. However, the term _Join
Proxy_ is retained with it's meaning from
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security].
It has become clear that not every routing member of the mesh ought It has become clear that not every routing member of the mesh ought
to announce itself as a _Join Proxy_. There are a variety of local to announce itself as a _Join Proxy_. There are a variety of local
reasons by which a 6LR might not want to provide the _Join Proxy_ reasons by which a 6LR might not want to provide the _Join Proxy_
function. They include available battery power, already committed function. They include available battery power, already committed
network bandwidth, and also total available memory available for network bandwidth, and also total available memory available for
Neighbor Cache Entry slots. Neighbor Cache Entry slots.
There are other situations where the operator of the network would There are other situations where the operator of the network would
like to selective enable or disable the enrollment process in a like to selective enable or disable the enrollment process in a
skipping to change at page 4, line 12 skipping to change at page 3, line 45
This is why the current size of the DODAG is advertised separately in This is why the current size of the DODAG is advertised separately in
the new option. the new option.
As explained in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon], higher As explained in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon], higher
values decrease the likelyhood of an unenrolled node sending values decrease the likelyhood of an unenrolled node sending
enrollment traffic via this path. enrollment traffic via this path.
A network operator can set this value to the maximum value allowed, A network operator can set this value to the maximum value allowed,
effectively disable all new enrollment traffic. effectively disable all new enrollment traffic.
1.1. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Protocol Definition The term (1)"Join" has been used in documents like
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] to denote the activity of a new
node authenticating itself to the network in order to obtain
authorization to become a member of the network.
The size of the DODAG is measured by the Root based one the DAO In the context of the [RFC6550] RPL protocol, the term (2)"Join" has
activity. It represents a number of routes not a number of nodes, an alternate meaning: that of a node (already authenticating to the
and can only be used to infer a load in an homogeneous network where network, and already authorized to be a member of the network),
each node advertises the same number of addresses and generates deciding which part of the RPL DODAG to attach to. This term "Join"
roughly the same amount of traffic. The size may slightly change has to do with parent selection processes.
between a DIO and the next, so the value transmitted must be
considered as an approxmation. In order to avoid the ambiguity of this term, this document refers to
the process (1)"Join" as enrollment, leaving the term "Join" to mean
(2)"Join". The term "onboarding" (or IoT Onboarding) is sometimes
used to describe the enrollment process. However, the term _Join
Proxy_ is retained with it's meaning from
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security].
3. Protocol Definition
With this specification, the following option is defined for With this specification, the following option is defined for
transmission in the DIO issued by the DODAG root and it MUST be transmission in the DIO issued by the DODAG root and it MUST be
propagated down the DODAG without modification. propagated down the DODAG.
A 6LR which would otherwise be willing to act as a _Join Proxy_, will A 6LR which would otherwise be willing to act as a _Join Proxy_, will
examine the minimum priority field, and to that number, add any examine the minimum priority field, and to that number, add any
additional local consideration (such as upstream congestion). additional local consideration (such as upstream congestion).
The Enrollment Priority can only be increased by each 6LR in value, The Enrollment Priority can only be increased by each 6LR in value,
to the maximum value of 0x7f. to the maximum value of 0x7f.
The resulting priority, if less than 0x7f should enable the _Join The resulting priority, if less than 0x7f should enable the _Join
Proxy_ function. Proxy_ function.
skipping to change at page 5, line 4 skipping to change at page 4, line 48
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |Opt Length = 3 | exp | DODAG_Size | | Type |Opt Length = 3 | exp | DODAG_Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| min priority| |R| min priority|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type To be assigned by IANA Type To be assigned by IANA
exp a 4 bit unsigned integer, indicating the power of 2 that defines exp a 4 bit unsigned integer, indicating the power of 2 that defines
the unit of the DODAG Size, such that (unit=2^exp). the unit of the DODAG Size, such that (unit=2^exp).
DODAG_Size a 12 bit unsigned integer, expressing the size of the DODAG_Size a 12 bit unsigned integer, expressing the size of the
DODAG in units that depend on the exp field. The size of the DODAG in units that depend on the exp field. The size of the
DODAG is computed as (DAG_Size*2^exp). DODAG is computed as (DAG_Size*2^exp).
min.priority a 7 bit field which provides a base value for the min.priority a 7 bit field which provides a base value for the
Enhanced Beacon Join priority. A value of 0x7f (127) disables the Enhanced Beacon Join priority. A value of 0x7f (127) disables the
_Join Proxy_ function entirely. _Join Proxy_ function entirely.
R a reserved bit that SHOULD be set to 0 by senders, and MUST be R a reserved bit that SHOULD be set to 0 by senders, and MUST be
ignored by receivers. This reserved bit SHOULD be copied to ignored by receivers. This reserved bit SHOULD be copied to
options created. options created.
This document uses the extensions mechanism designed into [RFC6550]. This document uses the extensions mechanism designed into [RFC6550].
It does not need any mechanism to enable it. It does not need any mechanism to enable it.
The size of the DODAG is measured by the Root based one the DAO
activity. It represents a number of routes not a number of nodes,
and can only be used to infer a load in an homogeneous network where
each node advertises the same number of addresses and generates
roughly the same amount of traffic. The size may slightly change
between a DIO and the next, so the value transmitted must be
considered as an approxmation.
Future work like [I-D.ietf-roll-capabilities] will enable collection Future work like [I-D.ietf-roll-capabilities] will enable collection
of capabilities such as this one in reports to the DODAG root. of capabilities such as this one in reports to the DODAG root.
2.1. Upwards compatibility 3.1. Upwards compatibility
A 6LR which did not support this option would not act on it, or copy A 6LR which did not support this option would not act on it, or copy
it into it's DIO messages. Children and grandchildren nodes would it into it's DIO messages. Children and grandchildren nodes would
therefore not receive any telemetry via that path, and need to assume therefore not receive any telemetry via that path, and need to assume
a default value. a default value.
6LRs that support this option, but whose parent does not send it 6LRs that support this option, but whose parent does not send it
SHOULD assume a value of 0x40 as their base value. The nodes then SHOULD assume a value of 0x40 as their base value. The nodes then
adjust this base value based upon their observed congestion, emitting adjust this base value based upon their observed congestion, emitting
their adjusted DIO value to their children. their adjusted DIO value to their children.
A 6LR downstream of a 6LR where there was an interruption in the A 6LR downstream of a 6LR where there was an interruption in the
telemetry could err in two directions: * if the value implied by the telemetry could err in two directions:
base value of 0x40 was too low, then a 6LR might continue to attract
enrollment traffic when none should have been collected. This is a * if the value implied by the base value of 0x40 was too low, then a
stressor for the network, but this would also be what would occur 6LR might continue to attract enrollment traffic when none should
without this option at all. * if the value implied by the base value have been collected. This is a stressor for the network, but this
of 0x40 was too high, then a 6LR might deflect enrollment traffic to would also be what would occur without this option at all.
other parts of the DODAG tree, possibly refusing any enrollment
traffic at all. In order for this to happen, some significant * if the value implied by the base value of 0x40 was too high, then
congestion must be seen in the sub-tree where the implied 0x40 was a 6LR might deflect enrollment traffic to other parts of the DODAG
introduced. The 0x40 is only the half-way point, so if such an tree, possibly refusing any enrollment traffic at all. In order
amount of congestion was present, then this sub-tree of the DODAG for this to happen, some significant congestion must be seen in
simply winds up being more cautious than it needed to be. the sub-tree where the implied 0x40 was introduced.
The 0x40 is only the half-way point, so if such an amount of
congestion was present, then this sub-tree of the DODAG simply winds
up being more cautious than it needed to be.
It is possible that the temporal alternation of the above two It is possible that the temporal alternation of the above two
situations might introduce cycles of accepting and then rejecting situations might introduce cycles of accepting and then rejecting
enrollment traffic. This is something an operator should consider if enrollment traffic. This is something an operator should consider if
when they incrementally deploy this option to an existing LLN. In when they incrementally deploy this option to an existing LLN. In
addition, an operator would be unable to turn off enrollment traffic addition, an operator would be unable to turn off enrollment traffic
by sending a maximum value enrollment priority to the sub-tree. This by sending a maximum value enrollment priority to the sub-tree. This
situation is unfortunate, but without this option, the the situation situation is unfortunate, but without this option, the the situation
would occur all over the DODAG, rather than just in the sub-tree would occur all over the DODAG, rather than just in the sub-tree
where the option was omitted. where the option was omitted.
3. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
As per [RFC7416], RPL control frames either run over a secured layer As per [RFC7416], RPL control frames either run over a secured layer
2, or use the [RFC6550] Secure DIO methods. This option can be 2, or use the [RFC6550] Secure DIO methods. This option can be
placed into either a "clear" (layer-2 secured) DIO, or a layer-3 placed into either a "clear" (layer-2 secured) DIO, or a layer-3
Secure DIO. As such this option will have both integrity and Secure DIO. As such this option will have both integrity and
confidentiality mechanisms applied to it. confidentiality mechanisms applied to it.
A malicious node (that was part of the RPL control plane) could see A malicious node (that was part of the RPL control plane) could see
these options and could, based upon the observed minimal enrollment these options and could, based upon the observed minimal enrollment
priority signal a confederate that it was a good time to send priority signal a confederate that it was a good time to send
skipping to change at page 6, line 45 skipping to change at page 7, line 13
cause the enrollment process to stall. cause the enrollment process to stall.
The use of layer-2 or layer-3 security for RPL control messages The use of layer-2 or layer-3 security for RPL control messages
prevents the above two attacks, by preventing malicious nodes from prevents the above two attacks, by preventing malicious nodes from
becoming part of the control plane. A node that is attacked and has becoming part of the control plane. A node that is attacked and has
malware placed on it creates vulnerabilities in the same way such an malware placed on it creates vulnerabilities in the same way such an
attack on any node involved in Internet routing protocol does. The attack on any node involved in Internet routing protocol does. The
rekeying provisions of [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] exist to rekeying provisions of [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] exist to
permit an operator to remove such nodes from the network easily. permit an operator to remove such nodes from the network easily.
4. Privacy Considerations 5. Privacy Considerations
There are no new privacy issues caused by this extension. There are no new privacy issues caused by this extension.
5. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
Allocate a new number TBD01 from Registry RPL Control Message Allocate a new number TBD01 from Registry RPL Control Message
Options. This entry should be called Minimum Enrollment Priority. Options. This entry should be called Minimum Enrollment Priority.
6. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
This has been reviewed by Pascal Thubert and Thomas Wattenye. This has been reviewed by Konrad Iwanicki and Thomas Wattenye.
7. References 8. References
7.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon] [I-D.ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon]
Dujovne, D. and M. Richardson, "IEEE 802.15.4 Information (editor), D. D. and M. Richardson, "Encapsulation of
Element encapsulation of 6TiSCH Join and Enrollment 6TiSCH Join and Enrollment Information Elements", Work in
Information", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-
ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-14, 21 February enhanced-beacon-14, 21 February 2020,
2020, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6tisch-
6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-14.txt>. enrollment-enhanced-beacon-14.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]
Vucinic, M., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M. Richardson, Vucinic, M., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M. Richardson,
"Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP) for 6TiSCH", Work in "Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP) for 6TiSCH", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal- Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-
security-15, 10 December 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/ security-15, 10 December 2019,
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6tisch-
15.txt>. minimal-security-15.txt>.
[ieee802154] [ieee802154]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, ., "IEEE Std. IEEE standard for Information Technology, ., "IEEE Std.
802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) 802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate
Wireless Personal Area Networks", n.d., Wireless Personal Area Networks", n.d.,
<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/ <http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.15.4-2015.html>. standard/802.15.4-2015.html>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 8, line 21 skipping to change at page 8, line 33
[RFC7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using [RFC7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the
Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554, Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7554>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7554>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join] [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join]
Richardson, M., "6tisch Secure Join protocol", Work in Richardson, M., "6tisch Secure Join protocol", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity- Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-
secure-join-01, 25 February 2017, <http://www.ietf.org/ secure-join-01, 25 February 2017,
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6tisch-
01.txt>. dtsecurity-secure-join-01.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-roll-capabilities] [I-D.ietf-roll-capabilities]
Jadhav, R., Thubert, P., Richardson, M., and R. Sahoo, Jadhav, R. A., Thubert, P., Richardson, M., and R. N.
"RPL Capabilities", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, Sahoo, "RPL Capabilities", Work in Progress, Internet-
draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-07, 17 September 2020, Draft, draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-08, 17 March 2021,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-roll- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-
capabilities-07.txt>. capabilities-08.txt>.
Appendix A. Change history Appendix A. Change history
version 00. version 00.
Contributors
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Michael Richardson Michael Richardson
Sandelman Software Works Sandelman Software Works
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
Rahul Arvind Jadhav Rahul Arvind Jadhav
Huawei Tech Huawei Tech
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
82 lines changed or deleted 91 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/