Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt

Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> Fri, 15 June 2012 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE8621F846F; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z4H-9-3FOUDM; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D415321F8467; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591F755809E; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AC51C6E5B; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.147.40.163] (37-8-181-55.coucou-networks.fr [37.8.181.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BEC81C6DBA; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
References: <CC008CEF.1707C%d.sturek@att.net>
In-Reply-To: <CC008CEF.1707C%d.sturek@att.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-Id: <F251330B-E52E-46C3-9E1D-57F868CF39B7@thomasclausen.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206)
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:28:16 +0200
To: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "<roll@ietf.org>" <roll@ietf.org>, "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "<ipv6@ietf.org>" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:28:12 -0000

On 15 Jun 2012, at 15:57, Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> wrote:

> Hi Thomas (and Michael),
> 
> I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL.  The draft was written carefully
> to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL.  That said, the deployment we
> are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL (non-storing)
> and I think many others will find the information exchanged between
> neighbors using MLE as useful.
> 
> Don
> 

Hi Don,

Note that I was replying to Michael's suggestions that MLE be married to RPL.

If you think it's not, then MLE should neither be developed in ROLL nor be constrained by RPL code-points, messages or principles.


Thomas

> On 6/15/12 6:15 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" <ietf@thomasclausen.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> writes:
>>>   Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not
>>>   Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if
>>>   Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then
>>>   Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be
>>>   Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (&
>>>   Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally).
>>> 
>>> Thomas, you will note that:
>>> 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push
>>>    back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a
>>> type/code.
>>> 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL.
>>> 
>> 
>> In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such
>> that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context
>> (special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and
>> specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment.
>> 
>>> I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange.
>> 
>> I don't.
>> 
>> Thomas
>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>>> 
>> 
> 
>