Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL WG document

Thanks Mukul and Phil for the explanation. I definitely missed that the main purpose of this mechanism is to measure the current route before invoking a P2P DAG. Anders also had a good point that P2P works just fine without the measurement mechanism.

So JP, I can support this as a WG document. But I do encourage the WG to explore better integration in cases when the mechanisms are used together. 

Zach

On Apr 13, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Mukul Goyal wrote:

> Phil
> 
>> I agree that currently the two seem tightly entwined, in that p2p needs the measurement mechanism. But it might be that measurement is useful independently of p2p, and so keeping their specifications separate will prevent false coupling. It might be that once we are further along it makes sense to merge them, but in my opinion keeping them separate for now will lead to simpler and cleaner designs.
> 
> The measurement mechanism was originally in the P2P draft itself. It was suggested to us that this mechanism should be its own draft precisely for the reasons you have described above. However, it could be that Zach is not referring to simply putting the two mechanisms together in the same draft.
> 
> Thanks
> Mukul
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip Levis" <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
> To: "Zach Shelby" <zach@sensinode.com>
> Cc: "ROLL WG" <roll@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:23:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL	WG document
> 
> 
> On Apr 13, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Zach Shelby wrote:
> 
>> JP,
>> 
>> Although I agree that route metric measurement is necessary for p2p, why in the world is this a separate document from the base p2p specification? Furthermore there seems to be plenty of inefficiency in creating a separate mechanism, and it should be explored how this could be integrated into the same message exchange for setting up the p2p DAG. 
>> 
>> Therefore I would be opposed to have a separate WG document for the measurement mechanism, instead I think this work should be better integrated into the base p2p specification. 
> 
> Zach,
> 
> I agree that currently the two seem tightly entwined, in that p2p needs the measurement mechanism. But it might be that measurement is useful independently of p2p, and so keeping their specifications separate will prevent false coupling. It might be that once we are further along it makes sense to merge them, but in my opinion keeping them separate for now will lead to simpler and cleaner designs.
> 
> Phil
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

-- 
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://zachshelby.org  - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet"
Mobile: +358 40 7796297

Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL WG document

Attachment: smime.p7s