Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-goyal-6lowpan-rpl-compression-00.txt

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Thu, 19 May 2011 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=11397edf3=mukul@uwm.edu>
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 15299E06BE; Thu, 19 May 2011 11:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C+542kT8MnZC; Thu, 19 May 2011 11:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip1mta.uwm.edu (ip1mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DB6E06AD; Thu, 19 May 2011 11:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([129.89.7.133]) by ip1mta.uwm.edu with ESMTP; 19 May 2011 13:49:09 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A973112E3AF; Thu, 19 May 2011 13:49:09 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxAvI1moFpac; Thu, 19 May 2011 13:49:09 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.165]) by mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5EA12E3AE; Thu, 19 May 2011 13:49:09 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 13:49:09 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Message-ID: <1440112826.380330.1305830949067.JavaMail.root@mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <C192F33D-AF22-40D8-9246-2F5C1B808946@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.92]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.9_GA_2686 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.9_GA_2686)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>, 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-goyal-6lowpan-rpl-compression-00.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: Thu, 19 May 2011 18:49:25 -0000

>As a distant observer of the ROLL WG, one thing I don't understand is why this is necessary in the first place.
>As far as I understand, the domain of RPL is low-power (i.e., constrained) networks.
>6LoWPAN is just one of the network types RPL will be used on, and redoing this work for every other type (that benefits from >compactness) sounds wasteful to me.
>Why doesn't RPL itself define a reasonably compact representation then?

I think that is a good idea. The reasons I targetted 6lowpan:

1) In my view, RPL over 6lowpan is a common case.
2) 6lowpan already has a mechanism for next header compression, that we could use.

Thanks
Mukul 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>
To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@UWM.EDU>
Cc: "6lowpan" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "roll" <roll@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:26:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-goyal-6lowpan-rpl-compression-00.txt

Mukul,

I just looked at your draft in a little more detail.
Certainly, a purpose-built spec to squeeze out redundancy from a specific packet format will generally be more efficient than the generic compression I have written up.

However, the arguments in section 1.1 of draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-02.txt apply to the fullest here.
Since the HC spec needs to be understood by all nodes, it creates a powerful obstacle in evolving the subject protocol.  The strong coupling between the subject protocol and the compression spec also creates opportunity for interesting interoperability problems.

As a distant observer of the ROLL WG, one thing I don't understand is why this is necessary in the first place.
As far as I understand, the domain of RPL is low-power (i.e., constrained) networks.
6LoWPAN is just one of the network types RPL will be used on, and redoing this work for every other type (that benefits from compactness) sounds wasteful to me.
Why doesn't RPL itself define a reasonably compact representation then?

Gruesse, Carsten