Re: [Roll] [6tsch] comments on draft-phinney-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability

Michael Richardson <> Sat, 02 March 2013 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072E421F8540; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 08:54:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.588
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rtpFAOex4pGU; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 08:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDE321F8519; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 08:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763AB20168; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:02:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 640A463A5B; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:53:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554D663769; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:53:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 11:53:35 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6tsch] comments on draft-phinney-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 16:54:50 -0000

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Phinney <>; writes:
    Tom> variance in cycle-to-cycle.execution time. The messaging
    Tom> involved in such automation typically require higher data rates
    Tom> than those offered by IEEE 802.15.4, and any wireless messaging


    Tom>    The communication between the continuous process controllers
    Tom> of a plant and the discrete automation controllers typically
    Tom> occurs on a 100 Mbit/s or faster backbone comm link. Wireless
    Tom> is not involved, and there is no reason to anticipate that it

mcr> So, given that many plants are hybrids, are you saying that
mcr> this document applies only to the process control parts of the
mcr> plant?

So, I take it that you are agreeing with this statement.

And disagreeing that "hybrid plants are also out of scope", because
all process plants have a factory automation component, but that the
factory automation component is out of scope.

Further, you have made it clear that there is no direct interconnection
between the two networks.

Michael Richardson <>;, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.