Re: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences

JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com> Wed, 16 May 2012 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <jpv@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041A721F873D for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 3YPrdk+rUD8K for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D007321F8722 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=1101; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337188170; x=1338397770; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vNWeHAHfQ3O0uXIxYAIzeppdO3QqXF51QD3H2b01TOM=; b=TOf67rLQmk1hWGpYIrqCCJvq5tVtzO79AyHyMENc9z/fSUA+zAOrrMQu JeQV/OCVW/yww4DleBGt0xV3YB9Mc+CgDbr3Pd/tSlFEr6Fq+zU/7e2mw O3/cSWdTRZwMLpcQa1At3xIkqjJvuKZGdbkTfKgH4kPfE6CsuwpljqE9j k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkEFAIvTs0+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABEDoMPsG6BB4IVAQEBAwESAWYQCw4KLlcGNYdnBAGbI6AFixOEc2IDlXqFdYhigWmCMDs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,604,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="45051113"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2012 17:09:19 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4GH9J0v010185; Wed, 16 May 2012 17:09:19 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.114]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 16 May 2012 10:09:18 -0700
Received: from [10.60.114.227] ([10.60.114.227]) by xfe-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 16 May 2012 10:09:18 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA4E882D-ABE1-4635-AE88-5DEC34E28BA3@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:05:20 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5925112F-9E74-44C8-AA87-D9E80055E870@cisco.com>
References: <258D7E2F-F0C7-49EA-B831-81070C86EDB3@thomasclausen.org> <2257A578-B2DF-4145-8393-9BB5D7E1CFBD@cisco.com> <2225986E-992E-43C7-B0CA-9CDA91CE1F3A@thomasclausen.org> <B1B81482-0F7E-4BCE-BBA7-B21949E3C16C@cisco.com> <0958556A-7D9A-4E8B-8091-1D6EC0B813B4@thomasclausen.org> <ACBA7834-F4A1-4D9C-80D6-E76C793A6770@cisco.com> <CA4E882D-ABE1-4635-AE88-5DEC34E28BA3@cs.stanford.edu>
To: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2012 17:09:18.0385 (UTC) FILETIME=[A1073210:01CD3386]
Cc: roll WG <roll@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 17:09:31 -0000

indeed

On May 16, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Philip Levis wrote:

> 
> On May 16, 2012, at 6:54 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:
>> 
>> Well put it differently, it would be beneficial to provide more details on your testing scenarios for the WG to make sure that nothing 
>> is "scenario-dependent" and to make sure that the outcome could indeed apply to all scenarios, it might be worth being more explicit.
>> 
>> Could you do that before polling the WG ?
> 
> I think an example of what JP's talking about might be something such as the question I raised in Paris: what constitutes a "down link" in the testing? Thomas' response was "no ack after L2 retransmissions"; this is an assumption about behavior. How many retransmissions? What was the time spacing? It's not hard to configure 802.11, for example, such that L2 back off has only a tiny chance of successful delivery in the case of a hidden terminal. Most wireless protocol implementations today understand these issues and rely on much longer time frames to consider a link "down."
> 
> Phil
>