Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression as a new ROLL WG document

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Angelo" == Angelo P Castellani <[e-mail]> writes:
    Angelo> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 15:44, Michael Richardson
    Angelo> <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> No. You still massively increase the testing effort for no gain.

    Angelo> As long as I can implement only the smaller format in
    Angelo> energy-constrained networks and be interoperable, my gain is
    Angelo> clear.

Agreed.  And you are making my point: once you have smaller format,
there is no reason why any energy constrained device would ever have the
original format.

Which is why, if this is useful, then we should have one format only.
It doesn't hurt non-energy constrained, non-MTU-constrained devices to
use fewer bytes.

    Angelo> There was some messages in this thread saying that it was
    Angelo> decided on the ML that RPL should not have only the
    Angelo> synthetic packet format, so for this reason the best option
    Angelo> for low-power (short-frames, low-bandwidth) networks is to
    Angelo> have the synthetic format as a MUST on them.

I don't know that the ML concluded that.
I thought that most people felt that we should have one format.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [e-mail] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.