Re: [Roll] WG call to adopt draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-03

On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:40 AM 2/21/13, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

> 
>>>>>> "Anders" == Anders Brandt <Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com> writes:
>    Anders> To the authors of the draft, P2P-RPL seems to be the best choice for home applications.
>    Anders> RPL may be  applicable as well.
> 
>>> why it is best choice? this was not mentioned clearly in draft,
> 
>    Anders> The purpose of an applicability document is to describe the applicability of an invention, i.e.
>    Anders> how one should configure host and routing protocol parameters to make the invention work
>    Anders> in a given setting; in this case, P2P-RPL in home and building environments.
>    Anders> A similar document may be created for RPL in home and building environments.
> 
>    Anders> One day, when there also exists an RPL home & building applicability document, one _could_
>    Anders> draft an evaluation document; comparing the applicability of
>    Anders> the two protocols.
> 
> Based upon recent clarifications to P2P-RPL, it seems that it is not
> possible to use P2P-RPL without prior using rooted RPL,

How so?

- Ralph

> so your document
> must explain how RPL will be used in the home, in order that P2P may
> then be used.
> 
> -- 
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [ 
> 	
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll