draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-07.txt   draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-08.txt 
ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed. ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert
Expires: March 21, 2021 Cisco Expires: September 18, 2021 Cisco
M. Richardson M. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works Sandelman Software Works
R. Sahoo R. Sahoo
Juniper Juniper
September 17, 2020 March 17, 2021
RPL Capabilities RPL Capabilities
draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-07 draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-08
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 36 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 March 21, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 18, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
4.1.2. Secure CAPQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.2. Secure CAPQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.3. Base rules for CAPQ handling . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.3. Base rules for CAPQ handling . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Capability Set Response (CAPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Capability Set Response (CAPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Secure CAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.1. Secure CAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Guidelines for defining new capabilities . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Guidelines for defining new capabilities . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Handling Capability flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Handling Capability flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. Rules to handle capabilities flag . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1.1. Rules to handle capabilities flag . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Node Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Node Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Capability Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Capability Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.1. Format of Capability Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1.1. Format of Capability Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Routing Resource Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Routing Resource Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.1. Format of Routing Resource Capability . . . . . . . . 10 6.2.1. Format of Routing Resource Capability . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. New option: Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. New option: Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Capability Sub-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. Capability Sub-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. New Registry for CAPQ Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.3. New Registry for CAPQ Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.4. New Registry for Capabilities Flags . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.4. New Registry for Capabilities Flags . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.5. New Registry for Capabilities Indicators . . . . . . . . 12 8.5. New Registry for Capabilities Indicators . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Capability Handshake Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Capability Handshake Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Query supported Cap Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.1. Query supported Cap Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Query specific Cap Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.2. Query specific Cap Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.3. CAPS with partial Cap Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.3. CAPS with partial Cap Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
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, through which a node in This document adds a notion of capabilities, through which a node in
the network could inform its peers about its additional capabilities. the network could inform its peers about its additional capabilities.
This document highlights the differences between capabilities and Using capabilities, a node could determine whether the target node
Mode of Operation and explains the necessity for the former. supports the required feature before utilizing the feature. This
document highlights the differences between capabilities and Mode of
Operation and explains the necessity for the former.
1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology 1.1. Requirements Language and 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
MOP: Mode of Operation. Identifies the MOP of the RPL Instance as MOP: Mode of Operation. Identifies the MOP of the RPL Instance as
administratively provisioned at and distributed by the DODAG root. administratively provisioned at and distributed by the DODAG root.
skipping to change at page 4, line 11 skipping to change at page 4, line 14
Downstream path/direction: Path or direction to the node from the Downstream path/direction: Path or direction to the node from the
Root in a DAG. Root in a DAG.
This document uses terminology described in [RFC6550]. For the sake This document uses terminology described in [RFC6550]. For the sake
of readability all the known relevant terms are repeated in this of readability all the known relevant terms are repeated in this
section. section.
1.2. What are Capabilities? 1.2. What are Capabilities?
Currently RPL specification does not have a mechanism whereby a node Currently, RPL specification does not have a mechanism whereby a node
can signal the set of features that are available on its end. Such a can signal the set of features that are available on its end. Such a
mechanism could help the root to advertise its capabilities and in mechanism could help the root to advertise its capabilities and in
response also determine some advanced information about the response also determine some advanced information about the
capabilities of the joining nodes. This document defines capabilities of the joining nodes. This document defines
Capabilities which could be supported by the nodes and handshaked as Capabilities and corresponding messaging handshakes that could be
part of RPL signaling. Capabilities are embedded as a RPL Control supported by the nodes. Capabilities are embedded as an RPL Control
Message Option as defined in Section 6.7 of [RFC6550]. Message Option as defined in Section 6.7 of [RFC6550].
2. Requirements for this document 2. Requirements for this document
Following are the requirements considered for this documents: Following are the requirements considered for this documents:
REQ1: Optional capabilities handshake. Capabilities are features, REQ1: Optional capabilities handshake. Capabilities are features,
possibly optional, which could be handshaked between the nodes possibly optional, which could be indicated between the nodes
and the root within an RPL Instance. and the root within an RPL Instance.
REQ2: Capabilities handshake could be optionally added with existing REQ2: Capabilities handshake could be optionally added with existing
MOPs. Capabilities, being optional in nature, could be put to MOPs. Capabilities, being optional, could be put to use with
use with existing MOPs. Capabilities and MOP-extension are existing MOPs. Capabilities and MOP-extension are mutually
mutually independent i.e. a DIO can have a capabilities independent i.e. a DIO can have a capabilities option, MOP-
option, MOP-extension option or both in the same message. extension option, or both in the same message.
REQ3: Capabilities could be explicitly queried. REQ3: Capabilities could be explicitly queried.
2.1. How are Capabilities different from existing RPL primitives? 2.1. How are Capabilities different from existing RPL primitives?
The Mode of Operation (MOP) field in RPL mandates the operational The Mode of Operation (MOP) field in RPL mandates the operational
requirement for the nodes joining as routers. MOP and DIO requirement for the nodes joining as routers. MOP and DIO
Configuration Option is strictly controlled by the Root node in RPL. Configuration Option is strictly controlled by the Root node in RPL.
Intermediate 6LRs cannot modify these fields. Also, the MOP never Intermediate 6LRs cannot modify these fields. Also, the MOP never
changes for the lifetime of the RPL Instance. Changes in DIO changes for the lifetime of the RPL Instance. Changes in DIO
Configuration Option are possible but are rare. Capabilities, on the Configuration Option are possible but are rare. Capabilities, on the
other hand, might change more dynamically. other hand, might change more dynamically.
RPL DIO message also carries routing metrics and constraints as RPL DIO message also carries routing metrics and constraints as
specified in [RFC6551]. Metrics and constraints are used in addition specified in [RFC6551]. Metrics and constraints are used in addition
to an objective function to determine a node's rank calculation. A to an objective function to determine a node's rank calculation. A
router may use capabilities carried in DIO message as additional router may use capabilities carried in DIO messages as additional
metrics/constraints. However, capabilities have a larger scope and metrics/constraints. However, capabilities have a larger scope and
may be carried in messages other than DIO and can flow in either might be carried in messages other than DIO and can flow in either
direction (upstream and downstream). direction (upstream and downstream).
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.
skipping to change at page 6, line 9 skipping to change at page 6, line 12
I = Ignore the message if this capability is not understood. I = Ignore the message if this capability is not understood.
C = Flag indicating that the capability MUST be copied in the C = Flag indicating that the capability MUST be copied in the
downstream message. downstream message.
3.2. Capabilities Handshake 3.2. Capabilities Handshake
The root node can advertise the set of capabilities it supports in The root node can advertise the set of capabilities it supports in
the DIO message. A node can take advantage of the knowledge that the the DIO message. A node can take advantage of the knowledge that the
root supports a particular capability. Similarly a node can root supports a particular capability. Similarly, a node can
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 is strictly a subset of the capabilities
capabilities advertised by the root. advertised by the root.
In storing MOP, the DAO message from the 6LR can contain multiple In storing MOP, the DAO message from the 6LR can 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 Capabilities 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. Querying Capabilities 4. Querying Capabilities
Nodes may be interested in knowing the capabilities of another node Nodes may be interested in knowing the capabilities of another node
before taking an action. For example, consider before taking an action. For example, consider
[I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection], in which the Root may want to know [I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection], in which the Root may want to know
the capabilities of the nodes along a network segment before it the capabilities of the nodes along a network segment before it
initiates a projected DAO to install the routes along that segment. initiates a projected DAO to install the routes along that segment.
Caps can be carried in existing RPL Control messages as Control Caps can be carried in existing RPL Control messages as Control
Options, however Caps can also be queried explicitly. This section Options, however, Caps can also be queried explicitly. This section
provides a way for a node to query the capability set of another provides a way for a node to query the capability set of another
node. The capability query and subsequent response messages are node. The capability query and subsequent response messages are
directly addressed between the two peers. directly addressed between the two peers.
4.1. Capability Query (CAPQ) 4.1. Capability Query (CAPQ)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID | Flags | reserved | CAPQSequence | | RPLInstanceID | Flags | reserved | CAPQSequence |
skipping to change at page 8, line 12 skipping to change at page 8, line 14
reserved: One byte, set to zero by sender, ignored by receiver. reserved: One byte, set to zero by sender, ignored by receiver.
CAPQSequence: One byte, Sequence number copied from CAPQSequence CAPQSequence: One byte, Sequence number copied from CAPQSequence
received in the CAPQ message. received in the CAPQ message.
CAPS message SHOULD contain the capability set Figure 1 queried by CAPS message SHOULD contain the capability set Figure 1 queried by
the CAPQ sender. If the target node does not support a subset of the the CAPQ sender. If the target node does not support a subset of the
queried capabilities then the Capability Type List with the queried capabilities then the Capability Type List with the
unsupported cap-types SHOULD be sent back indicating the queried unsupported cap-types SHOULD be sent back indicating the queried
capabilities not-supported by the target node. For an example, check capabilities not-supported by the target node. For example, check
Appendix A.3 Appendix A.3
If the CAPQ message does not contain any Capability Type List option If the CAPQ message does not contain any Capability Type List option
then the receiver MUST respond with the cap types it supports using a then the receiver MUST respond with the cap types it supports using a
Capability Type List Option (see Figure 4). Capability Type List Option (see Figure 4).
If the capability set cannot be transmitted in a single message (for If the capability set cannot be transmitted in a single message (for
e.g., because of MTU limitations) then multiple CAPS messages could e.g., because of MTU limitations) then multiple CAPS messages could
be used. All the CAPS messages MUST use the same CAPQSequence number be used. All the CAPS messages MUST use the same CAPQSequence number
copied from the corresponding CAPQ message. copied from the corresponding CAPQ message.
skipping to change at page 8, line 34 skipping to change at page 8, line 36
4.2.1. Secure CAPS 4.2.1. Secure CAPS
A Secure CAPS message follows the format in [RFC6550] Figure 7, where A Secure CAPS message follows the format in [RFC6550] Figure 7, where
the base message format is the CAPS message shown in Figure 5. the base message format is the CAPS message shown in Figure 5.
5. Guidelines for defining new capabilities 5. 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
sparingly, as much as possible. sparingly.
5.1. Handling Capability flags 5.1. Handling Capability flags
A node MUST drop or discard the message with an unknown capability A node MUST drop or discard the message with an unknown capability
with the 'D' flag set. The message MUST be discarded silently. with the 'D' flag set. The message MUST be discarded silently.
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
capabilities MUST be copied downstream by the node even if the node capabilities MUST be copied downstream by the node even if the node
does not understand the capability. does not understand the capability.
5.1.1. Rules to handle capabilities flag 5.1.1. Rules to handle capabilities flag
On receiving a capability it does not support, the node MUST check
the 'J' flag of the capability before joining the Instance. If the How should a node react to capability it does
'J' flag is set then it can only join as a 6LN. not support before joining the Instance?
If the node is operating as 6LR and subsequently it receives a On receiving a capability it does not support, the node MUST check
capability from its preferred parent which it does not understand the 'J' flag of the capability before joining the Instance. If
with 'J' flag set, then the node has to switch itself to 6LN mode. the 'J' flag is set then it can only join as a 6LN.
During switching, the node needs to inform its downstream peers of
its changed status by sending a DIO with infinite rank as mentioned How should a node react to capability it does not support after
in RFC6550. Alternatively, a node may decide to switch to another joining the Instance?
parent with compatible and known capabilities. If the node is operating as 6LR and subsequently it receives a
Capabilities are used to indicate a feature that is supported by the capability from its preferred parent which it does not understand
node. Capabilities are not meant for configuration management for with 'J' flag set, then the node has to switch itself to 6LN mode.
e.g., setting a threshold. During switching, the node needs to inform its downstream peers of
its changed status by sending a DIO with infinite rank as
mentioned in RFC6550. Alternatively, a node may decide to switch
to another parent with compatible and known capabilities.
When to use and when not to use Capabilities?
Capabilities are used to indicate a feature that is supported by
the node. Capabilities are not meant for configuration management
for e.g., setting a threshold.
6. Node Capabilities 6. Node Capabilities
6.1. Capability Indicators 6.1. Capability Indicators
Capability Indicators indicate the capabilities supported by the node Capability Indicators indicate the capabilities supported by the node
in the form of simple flags. Capabilities that do not need in the form of simple flags. Capabilities that do not need
additional information to be specified can make use of these flags to additional information to be specified can make use of these flags to
indicate their support. indicate their support.
skipping to change at page 9, line 48 skipping to change at page 10, line 10
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.
T flag (Bit 1): Indicates whether the node supports 6LoRH [RFC8138]. T flag (Bit 1): Indicates whether the node supports 6LoRH [RFC8138].
6.2. Routing Resource Capability 6.2. 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 state information in the routing table. LLN LLN to maintain routing state information in the routing table. LLN
routers typically operate with constraints on processing power, routers typically operate with constraints on processing power,
memory, and energy (battery power). Memory limits the size of memory, and energy (battery power). Memory limits the size of the
routing state an LR and BR can maintain. When the routing table of routing state 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
capability. capability.
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. The 'C' bit of this capability MUST be and it MUST NOT be forwarded. The 'C' bit of this capability MUST be
set to 0. set to 0.
6.2.1. Format of Routing Resource Capability 6.2.1. 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CapType=0x02 | Len=3 |J|I|C| Flags | Reserved | | CapType=0x02 | Len=3 |J|I|C| Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Total Capacity | | Total Capacity |
skipping to change at page 13, line 27 skipping to change at page 13, line 27
[TODO] implications of malicious attack involving setting the [TODO] implications of malicious attack involving setting the
capability flags. capability flags.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-mopex] [I-D.ietf-roll-mopex]
Jadhav, R., Thubert, P., and M. Richardson, "Mode of Jadhav, R., Thubert, P., and M. Richardson, "Mode of
Operation extension", draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01 (work in Operation extension", draft-ietf-roll-mopex-02 (work in
progress), June 2020. progress), September 2020.
[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>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
[RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138,
April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>. April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-lwig-nbr-mgmt-policy]
Jadhav, R., Sahoo, R., Duquennoy, S., and J. Eriksson,
"Neighbor Management Policy for 6LoWPAN", draft-ietf-lwig-
nbr-mgmt-policy-03 (work in progress), February 2019.
[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-11 routing state in RPL", draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-16
(work in progress), September 2020. (work in progress), January 2021.
[I-D.thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138]
Thubert, P. and L. Zhao, "Configuration option for RFC
8138", draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-03 (work in
progress), July 2019.
[RFC6551] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N., [RFC6551] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N.,
and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551, in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6551>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6551>.
Appendix A. Capability Handshake Example Appendix A. Capability Handshake Example
A.1. Query supported Cap Types A.1. Query supported Cap Types
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
55 lines changed or deleted 56 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/