IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-10 Comments

Federico Consoli <admin@ipv6it.org> Sun, 06 May 2012 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <admin@ipv6it.org>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD4421F84D0 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 May 2012 02:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5KeZFMeSHY3g for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 May 2012 02:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1937C21F84C9 for <Roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 May 2012 02:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty8 with SMTP id y8so3686978bkt.31 for <Roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 May 2012 02:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=Cr9VrRMLqCoNd/G7Q3NeRnw1a9U34DRgRFMJA3aQkxE=; b=HfzGQ9l9o0LWSVn+h/y4kJ+UhPCRMVswWjhvNymxi+8Rp27XEYi6rfd2rlut+IzGsP yyZP5OP/+y2J2YSVLN/XNjxHbjLvXAkAlcp+s3kYAOuyKOk6HCTHwommhdyvUbxireuz uypHjFRCuOzwnJH/iMMEMhMMHcI+VhI89nKyKKxJ+mYIsSIjJX1b6xI+O5Md2UyeM+n2 1V1JrVmGZuGIpqAeyeYUuZQH5J3HwC0b6xwsgoVOdn4+pEn5KShBEXW4B4SzyZeAVOF9 JYozk4p9qVxVMzSd5BOX3ygL+tS9SqLzaMPEKTwG8m82VGR2KlL6hB2nmtmoDA61wTSe vUsg==
Received: by 10.205.121.130 with SMTP id gc2mr4116993bkc.10.1336295660880; Sun, 06 May 2012 02:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (host77-121-dynamic.8-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [87.8.121.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v2sm25816740bkw.16.2012.05.06.02.14.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 May 2012 02:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FA640E6.1050707@ipv6it.org>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 11:14:14 +0200
From: Federico Consoli <admin@ipv6it.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roll@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnooF5XnPM+WZto0nRJ+M91NzhyMvT4WZb3qsLK+Ew8fgNm9jtMXUfH0DDq3panU/6eOxaf
Subject: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-10 Comments
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Sun, 06 May 2012 09:14:23 -0000

Hi,
In [RFC6550] section 11.2. Loop Avoidance and Detection
"SenderRank: 16-bit field set to zero by the source and to DAGRank(rank) 
by a router that forwards inside the RPL network."

In MRHOF Section 2:
"The terminologies used in this document are also consistent with the 
terminologies described in [RFC6550], except the term Rank. In this 
document, Rank refers to the value of the Rank field, not DAGRank as in 
[RFC6550]."


I believe that it is fairly intuitiveto use Rank in SenderRank but I can 
also think that I could use DAGRank in the data-flow header.
I think that to be more compliant with [RFC6550] (and also with 
[RFC6553]) I think you should also introduce the term SenderRankin 
section 2. What do you think?

-- 
Regards
Consoli Federico

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email