[Roll] Comments on draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-05

"Hamidreza Kermajani" <hrkermajani@entel.upc.edu> Wed, 12 February 2014 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <hrkermajani@entel.upc.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCBF51A0917; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:15:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LRZ-WovTyk6P; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from violet.upc.es (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A811A0916; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:15:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by violet.upc.es (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s1CAFn0o018049; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:15:49 +0100
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263DD2CBD0E; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:15:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 147.83.113.90 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:15:49 +0100
Message-ID: <1dff04e761093e53f280601c57e17c48.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:15:49 +0100
From: Hamidreza Kermajani <hrkermajani@entel.upc.edu>
To: roll@ietf.org, lwip@ietf.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd
X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:55:42 by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:15:49 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Roll] Comments on draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-05
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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, 12 Feb 2014 10:15:55 -0000

Dear Omprakash, WG list,

We have reviewed draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-05, and we would
like to share our comments:

1.- Section 3 states "In systems that cannot cancel the packets that are
already in the queue, it is advisable to set the minimum interval to be
much larger than the minimum link layer packet time."

Could "much larger" be quantified?


2.- In section 5, the first sentence

"If a node receives more DIOs than the redundancy constant..."

should be changed a bit by a new sentence like:

"If a node receives a number of DIOs greater than or equal to the
redundancy constant..."


3.- In section 5, regarding the range proposed for the redundancy
constant, i.e. 3-5: can this range be applied for any network density?
For which network density has this range of redundancy constant values
been tested?


Thanks!

Hamidreza Kermajani and Carles Gomez
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya