idnits 2.17.1 draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6550, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (May 23, 2019) is 1794 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ROLL P. Thubert, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Updates: 6550 (if approved) May 23, 2019 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: November 24, 2019 8 Configuration option for RFC 8138 9 draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-00 11 Abstract 13 This document complements RFC 8138 and dedicates a bit in the RPL 14 configuration option to indicate whether RFC 8138 compression should 15 be used within the RPL instance. When the bit is not set, source 16 nodes that support RFC 8138 should refrain from using the compression 17 unless the information is superseded by configuration. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 24, 2019. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 3. Updating RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 1. Introduction 67 The transition to [RFC8138] in a network can only be done when all 68 nodes support the specification. In a mixed case with both 69 RFC8138-capable and non-capable nodes, the compression should be 70 turned off. 72 This document complements RFC 8138 and dedicates a bit in the RPL 73 configuration option to indicate whether RFC 8138 compression should 74 be used within the RPL instance. When the bit is not set, source 75 nodes that support RFC 8138 should refrain from using the compression 76 unless the information is superseded by configuration. 78 2. BCP 14 80 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 81 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 82 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 83 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 84 capitals, as shown here. 86 3. Updating RFC 6550 88 RPL defines a configuration option that is registered to IANA in 89 section 20.14. of [RFC6550]. This specification defines a new flag 90 "Enable RFC8138 Compression" (T) that is encoded in one of the 91 reserved control bits in the option. The new flag is set to turn on 92 the use of the compression of RPL artifacts with RFC 8138. 94 4. Operation 96 A node that supports this specification SHOULD source packets in the 97 compressed form using [RFC8138] if the new T flag is set in the RPL 98 configuration option from its parents. Failure to do so will result 99 in larger packets, yields higher risks of loss and may cause a 100 fragmentation. 102 A node that supports this specification SHOULD refrain from sourcing 103 packets in the compressed form using [RFC8138] if the T flag is 104 reset. This behaviour can be overridden by a configuration of the 105 node in order to cope with intermediate implementations of the root 106 that support [RFC8138] but not this specification and cannot set the 107 T flag. 109 Regardless of the setting of the bit, the node MUST forward a packet 110 in the form it was received, compressed or uncompressed. 112 5. IANA Considerations 114 This specification updates the "Registry for the DODAG Configuration 115 Option Flags" that was created for [RFC6550] as follows: 117 +---------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ 118 | Bit number | Suggested value | Defined in | 119 +---------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ 120 | 2 (suggested) | Turn on RFC8138 Compression (T) | This RFC | 121 +---------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ 123 Table 1: New DODAG Configuration Option Flag 125 6. Security Considerations 127 No specific threat was identified with this specification. 129 7. Acknowledgments 131 8. References 133 8.1. Normative References 135 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 136 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 137 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 138 . 140 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., 141 Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, 142 JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for 143 Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, 144 DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, 145 . 147 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 148 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 149 May 2017, . 151 8.2. Informative References 153 [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, 154 "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network 155 (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, 156 April 2017, . 158 Author's Address 160 Pascal Thubert (editor) 161 Cisco Systems, Inc 162 Building D 163 45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200 164 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254 165 FRANCE 167 Phone: +33 497 23 26 34 168 Email: pthubert@cisco.com