draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-03.txt   draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-04.txt 
ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed. ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Tech Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert
Expires: October 18, 2020 Cisco Expires: November 17, 2020 Cisco
M. Richardson M. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works Sandelman Software Works
R. Sahoo, Ed. R. Sahoo
April 16, 2020 Juniper
May 16, 2020
RPL Capabilities RPL Capabilities
draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-03 draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-04
Abstract Abstract
This draft enables the discovery, advertisement and query of This draft enables the discovery, advertisement and query of
capabilities for RPL nodes. capabilities for RPL nodes.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 October 18, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 17, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. What are Capabilities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. What are Capabilities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements for this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements for this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. How are Capabilities different from MOP or DIO 2.1. How are Capabilities different from MOP or DIO
Configuration Option? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Configuration Option? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Capability Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Capability Control Message Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Capability Control Message Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Capabilities Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Capabilities Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Guidelines for defining new capabilities . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Guidelines for defining new capabilities . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Handling Capability flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Handling Capability flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. Rules to handle capabilities flag . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.1. Rules to handle capabilities flag . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. ROLL Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Node Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Capability Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Capability Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. Format of Capability Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.1. Format of Capability Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Routing Resource Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Routing Resource Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2.1. Format of Routing Resource Capability . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.1. Format of Routing Resource Capability . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. New option: Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. New option: Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. New Registry for Capabilities Flags . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. New Registry for Capabilities Flags . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. New Registry for Capabilities Indicators . . . . . . . . 10 7.3. New Registry for Capabilities Indicators . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Capability Handshake Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Capability Handshake Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing
scheme. The protocol creates a DAG-like structure which operates scheme. The protocol creates a DAG-like structure which operates
with a given "Mode of Operation" (MOP) determining the minimal and with a given "Mode of Operation" (MOP) determining the minimal and
mandatory set of primitives to be supported by all the participating mandatory set of primitives to be supported by all the participating
nodes. nodes.
This document adds a notion of capabilities using which the nodes in This document adds a notion of capabilities using which the nodes in
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
3. Capabilities 3. Capabilities
Handling of Capabilities MUST be supported if the network uses MOPex Handling of Capabilities MUST be supported if the network uses MOPex
[I-D.ietf-roll-mopex]. [I-D.ietf-roll-mopex].
Note that capabilities and MOPex are mutually exclusive and it is Note that capabilities and MOPex are mutually exclusive and it is
possible for an implementation to support either or both of the possible for an implementation to support either or both of the
options. options.
3.1. Capability Categories 3.1. Capability Control Message Option
Capabilities can be divided into two broad categories:
Global Capabilities: These include the capabilities supported across
an RPL instance and are advertised by the Root of the DODAG. If a
node in the LLN doesn't support a particular global capability it may
have to join the RPL instance as a leaf node, as indicated by that
individual capability option. Example of such capabilities are
Compression Methods Supported, Support for TE paths (P-DAO).
Local Capabilities: It will include the capabilities very specific to
a node in the LLN. Example of such capabilities are NBR Cache
information, Routing table information.
3.2. Capability Control Message Option
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 = TODO | Option Length | Capabilities TLVs | Type = TODO | Option Length | Capabilities TLVs
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Capabilities Option Figure 1: Capabilities Option
Multiple capabilities could be sent in the same message. The length Multiple capabilities could be sent in the same message. The length
field allows the message parser to skip the capability TLV parsing. field allows the message parser to skip the capability TLV parsing.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CAPType |J|I|G|C|.|.|.|.| CAPInfo(Opt) | CapType | Len |J|I|C| Flags | ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Capabilities TLV Figure 2: Capabilities TLV
Every capability is identified by its type and it may have an Every capability is identified by its type and it may have an
optional Capability Info. Note that a given capability may or may optional Capability Info. Note that a given capability may or may
not be diseminated with additional information depending on the scope not be diseminated with additional information depending on the scope
of the capability indicated by the I bit. of the capability indicated by the I bit.
J = Join only as leaf if capability not understood Len: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in octets of the
TLV, not including the CapType, Length and Flags fields.
I = Capability Info present
C = Flag indicating that the capability MUST be copied in the
downstream messages
G = If set indicates a Global Capability else its a local. For a
capability if it's mandatory and global bit is set then node those
either doesn't understand the capability or doesn't have this
capability should not join the DODAG as a router. All the global
capablities MUST be diseminated across the network. 6LRs in the
network MUST copy the global capabilities in their DIOs.
0 1 2 3 J = Join only as leaf if capability not understood.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CAPLen | Cap Info(format decided by individual cap spec)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Capabilities Info I = Ignore the message if this capability is not understood.
Capability Information provides additional information for the given C = Flag indicating that the capability MUST be copied in the
capability. The format of this field should be defined as part the downstream message.
individual capability specification and is beyond the scope of this
document. This document provides a container format for carrying the
capability and its context information.
3.3. Capabilities Handshake 3.2. Capabilities Handshake
The root node could advertise the set of capabilities it supports in The root node could advertise the set of capabilities it supports in
the DIO message. A node could take advantage of the knowledge that the DIO message. A node could take advantage of the knowledge that
the root supports a particular capability. Similarly a node could the root supports a particular capability. Similarly a node could
advertise its capabilities in the DAO message using the capability advertise its capabilities in the DAO message using the capability
control message option defined in this document. Capabilities control message option defined in this document. Capabilities
advertised by non-root nodes are strictly a subset of the advertised by non-root nodes are strictly a subset of the
capabilities advertised by the root. capabilities advertised by the root.
In storing MOP, the DAO message from the 6LR could contain multiple In storing MOP, the DAO message from the 6LR could contain multiple
target options because of the DAO-Aggregation. The targets of the target options because of the DAO-Aggregation. The targets of the
capabilities option are indicated by one or more Target options that capabilities option are indicated by one or more Target options that
precede the Capabilties Option. This handling is similar to the precede the Capabilities Option. This handling is similar to the
Transit Information Option as supported in Section 6.7.8. of Transit Information Option as supported in Section 6.7.8. of
[RFC6550]. [RFC6550].
4. Guidelines for defining new capabilities 4. Guidelines for defining new capabilities
This section provides guidelines/recommendations towards defining new This section provides guidelines/recommendations towards defining new
capabilities. Note that the capabilities might be carried as part of capabilities. Note that the capabilities might be carried as part of
the multicast messaging such as DIO and hence the set should be used the multicast messaging such as DIO and hence the set should be used
in restrictive manner as far as possible. in restrictive manner as far as possible.
4.1. Handling Capability flags 4.1. Handling Capability flags
The 'G' (global) flag indicating global capability should be set only A node MUST drop or discard the message silently having an unknown
by the root. However, it is not mandatory for the root to set this capability with 'D' (discard) flag set.
flag for all capabilities it indicates. It should set this flag only
for those capabilities which the 6LRs downstream must propagate
further downstream.
The 'I' (information) flag is set only when there is additional The 'I' (information) flag is set only when there is additional
information to be set in context to the capability. information to be set in context to the capability.
The 'J' (join) flag can be set in context to a capability either by a The 'J' (join) flag can be set in context to a capability either by a
6LR or the root. The 'J' flag indicates that if the capability is 6LR or the root. The 'J' flag indicates that if the capability is
not supported by a node then it can join the instance only as a 6LN not supported by a node then it can join the instance only as a 6LN
(or do not join as 6LR). (or do not join as 6LR).
The 'C' (copy) flag is set by the node indicating that the The 'C' (copy) flag is set by the node indicating that the
skipping to change at page 7, line 37 skipping to change at page 6, line 48
'J' flag is set then it can only join as a 6LN. 'J' flag is set then it can only join as a 6LN.
If the node is operating as 6LR and subsequently it receives a If the node is operating as 6LR and subsequently it receives a
capability which it doesn't understand with 'J' flag set, then the capability which it doesn't understand with 'J' flag set, then the
node has to switch itself to 6LN mode. During switching the node node has to switch itself to 6LN mode. During switching the node
needs to inform its downstream peers of its changed status by sending needs to inform its downstream peers of its changed status by sending
a DIO with infinite rank as mentioned in [RFC6550]. a DIO with infinite rank as mentioned in [RFC6550].
Capabilities are used to indicate a feature that is supported by the Capabilities are used to indicate a feature that is supported by the
node. Capabilities are not meant for configuration management for node. Capabilities are not meant for configuration management for
e.g., setting a threshold./>. e.g., setting a threshold./>.
5. ROLL Capabilities 5. Node Capabilities
5.1. Capability Indicators 5.1. Capability Indicators
Capability Indicators indicates the capabilities supported by the Capability Indicators indicates the capabilities supported by the
node in the form of simple flags. Capabilities who do not have node in the form of simple flags. Capabilities who do not have
additional information to be specified could make use of these flags additional information to be specified could make use of these flags
to indicate their support. to indicate their support.
5.1.1. Format of Capability Indicators 5.1.1. Format of Capability Indicators
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
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=0x01 |J|I|G|C|. . . .| Len=3 |. . . . . Indic| | CapType=0x01 | Len |J|I|C| Flags |T|..Indicators..
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|ators . . . . . . . . . . . .|T|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Capability Indicators TLV Figure 3: Capability Indicators TLV
Flags: LRs MUST set it to 0. I bit will always be set to 0. Flags: LRs MUST set it to 0. I bit will always be set to 0.
24-bit Indicators: Currently right most bit is used to indicate 'T' T flag (Bit 1): Indicates whether the node supports 6LoRH [RFC8138].
bit indicating support for 6LoRH. All the unused Indicator bits MUST
be set to zero.
5.2. Routing Resource Capability 5.2. Routing Resource Capability
Storing mode of operation requires each intermediate router in the Storing mode of operation requires each intermediate router in the
LLN to maintain routing states' information in the routing table. LLN to maintain routing states' information in the routing table.
LLN routers typically operate with constraints on processing power, LLN routers typically operate with constraints on processing power,
memory, and energy (battery power). Memory limits the number of memory, and energy (battery power). Memory limits the number of
routing states an LR and BR can maintain. When the routing table of routing states an LR and BR can maintain. When the routing table of
an LR or BR is full, it will either reject the new DAO messages an LR or BR is full, it will either reject the new DAO messages
received or will use some replacement policy to remove a routing received or will use some replacement policy to remove a routing
entry and add the new one. Rejection of DAO messages will lead to an entry and add the new one. Rejection of DAO messages will lead to an
increase in DAO message transmission that impacts the energy and increase in DAO message transmission that impacts the energy and
network convergence time. Routing state replacement leads to network convergence time. Routing state replacement leads to
downward path downtime. downward path downtime.
One possible way to solve problems due to routing table size One possible way to solve problems due to routing table size
constraint is to use this information to add neighbors to the DAO constraint is to use this information to add neighbors to the DAO
parent set.Routing resource capability can be used by LR and BR to parent set. Routing resource capability can be used by LR and BR to
advertise their current routing table usage details in the network. advertise their current routing table usage details in the network.
LR or LNs in LLN can use this information in the selection of the DAO LR or LNs in LLN can use this information in the selection of the DAO
parent set. PCE can use this information to select intermediate parent set. PCE can use this information to select intermediate
routers for the projected routes. Routing Resource is an optional routers for the projected routes. Routing Resource is an optional
local capability. capability.
Routing reource capability TLV can occur multiple times in the
capability control message option to advertise below possible routing
table information.
I: Master Routing Table Storing
II: Storing mode P-DAO Table
III: Non-Storing mode P-DAO
Routing resource capabablity sent in DIO message has link local scope Routing resource capabablity sent in DIO message has link local scope
and it MUST not be forwarded. and it MUST not be forwarded. The 'C' bit of this capability MUST be
set to 0.
5.2.1. Format of Routing Resource Capability 5.2.1. Format of Routing Resource Capability
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=0x03 |J|I|G|C|. . . .| CAPLen | Reserved | | CapType=0x02 | Len=3 |J|I|C| Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Total Capacity | | Total Capacity |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Routing Resource Capability TLV Figure 4: Routing Resource Capability TLV
Type: 0x03. Type: 0x02.
Flags: G bit MUST be set to 0. I bit will always be set to 1. Flags: I bit MUST be set to 0. C bit MUST be set to 0.
CAPLen: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in octets of Len: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in octets of the
the option, not including the Option Type and Length fields. option, not including the Option Type and Length/flags fields.
Resvd: 8-bit unused field. It MUST be initialized to zero by the Resvd: 8-bit unused field. It MUST be initialized to zero by the
sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Total Capacity: 16 bit unsigned integer representing the the routing Total Capacity: 16 bit unsigned integer representing the routing
table size. table size.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Georgios Papadopoulos, Li Zhao for early review and Thanks to Georgios Papadopoulos, Li Zhao for early review and
feedback. feedback.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. New option: Capabilities 7.1. New option: Capabilities
New entry is required for supporting new Capabilities option in the New entry is required for supporting new Capabilities option in the
"RPL Control Message Options" space [RFC6550]. "RPL Control Message Options" space [RFC6550].
+-------+--------------+---------------+ +-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference | | Value | Meaning | Reference |
+-------+--------------+---------------+ +-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| TBD1 | Capabilities | This document | | 0x01 | Capability Indicators | This document |
+-------+--------------+---------------+ | 0x02 | Routing Resource Capability | This document |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
New options New options
7.2. New Registry for Capabilities Flags 7.2. New Registry for Capabilities Flags
IANA is requested to create a registry for the Capabilities flags as IANA is requested to create a registry for the Capabilities flags as
described in Section 2.1 of this document. This registry should be described in Section 2.1 of this document. This registry should be
located in TODO. New Capabilities flags may be allocated only by an located in TODO. New Capabilities flags may be allocated only by an
IETF review. Currently no flags are defined by this document. Each IETF review. Currently no flags are defined by this document. Each
value is tracked with the following qualities: value is tracked with the following qualities:
skipping to change at page 11, line 8 skipping to change at page 10, line 8
mechanisms and thus are not visible to a malicious node. mechanisms and thus are not visible to a malicious node.
[TODO] implications of malicious attack involving setting the [TODO] implications of malicious attack involving setting the
capability flags. capability flags.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection] [I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection]
Thubert, P., Jadhav, R., and M. Gillmore, "Root initiated Thubert, P., Jadhav, R., and M. Gillmore, "Root initiated
routing state in RPL", draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-09 routing state in RPL", draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-10
(work in progress), November 2019. (work in progress), May 2020.
[I-D.thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138] [I-D.thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138]
Thubert, P. and L. Zhao, "Configuration option for RFC Thubert, P. and L. Zhao, "Configuration option for RFC
8138", draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-03 (work in 8138", draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-03 (work in
progress), July 2019. progress), July 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 22 skipping to change at page 11, line 22
| | | | | |
| | DAO(CS2) | | | DAO(CS2) |
| |<-----------| | |<-----------|
| DAO(CS2) | | | DAO(CS2) | |
|<------------| | |<------------| |
| | | | | |
CS: Capabilities Set CS: Capabilities Set
CS1: Capabilities set advertised by root CS1: Capabilities set advertised by root
CS2: Capabilities set advertised by node. CS2 is a subset of CS1. CS2: Capabilities set advertised by node. CS2 is a subset of CS1.
Figure 6: Capabilities Option Figure 5: Capabilities Option
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor) Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor)
Huawei Tech Huawei
Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield, Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India India
Phone: +91-080-49160700 Phone: +91-080-49160700
Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com
Pascal Thubert Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D Building D
skipping to change at page 13, line 4 skipping to change at page 12, line 4
MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254
France France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34 Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Michael Richardson Michael Richardson
Sandelman Software Works Sandelman Software Works
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
Rabi Narayan Sahoo (editor) Rabi Narayan Sahoo
Juniper
Email: rabinarayans0828@gmail.com Email: rabinarayans0828@gmail.com
 End of changes. 39 change blocks. 
114 lines changed or deleted 69 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/