Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building as a new ROLL WG document

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Anders,

So I understand draft change title/aim from RPL to P2P reason; the
authors found that P2P-RPL is the best choice for home applications.
My comments below,

On 2/8/13, Anders Brandt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Abdussalam,
>
>>I agree that it is logical *to refer* and discuss applicability of RPL-P2P,
>> but don't agree to change the aim
>>of the draft from RPL to RPL-P2P.
>>Do you think both protocols are similar, or do you think that RPL is not
>> applicabile for home applications, just RPL-P2P?
>
> I think that the protocols are not similar and I think that P2P-RPL is
> applicable for home applications.

So I understand from your reply that you think RPL MAY NOT be
applicabale for home and building application,

> Restating Robert's comment, the draft in its original form was a sort of
> problem statement which helps nobody designing anything.
> The natural evolution of the draft was to describe how one could meet the
> requirements for home applications; and to the authors
> of the draft, P2P-RPL seems to be the best choice for home applications.
>

why it is best choice? this was not mentioned clearly in draft,

> I have no intention of preventing others from evaluating the applicability
> of RPL for home applications.

I prefered discuss both in draft, so that RPL and RPL are protocols of
ROLL and to describe how to meet the applicability for them in
buildings and home,

or describe P2P in this draft and leave others as P2MP and RPL in
other draft if you like

AB