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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 02 March 2013 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 072E421F8540; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 08:54:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rtpFAOex4pGU; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 08:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDE321F8519; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 08:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763AB20168; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:02:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 640A463A5B; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:53:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554D663769; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:53:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
In-Reply-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: <29193.1362243215@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6tsch] comments on draft-phinney-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability
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: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 16:54:50 -0000

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Phinney <tom.phinney@cox.net>; 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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/