Re: [Roll] Closure text for ticket #86

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Mukul" == Mukul Goyal <[e-mail]> writes:
    Mukul> #86: G flag: do we need that text?

    Mukul> Problem ------------------------------ Disagreement on the
    Mukul> meaning of 'G' bit and imposed setting to 0;

    Mukul> Proposed resolution --------------------------- Add the
    Mukul> following text to the draft:

    Mukul> "The origin sets the G flag to indicate the relative
    Mukul> importance of the route discovery it is initiating. The G
    Mukul> flag is set to one if this particular route discovery is more
    Mukul> important from application's perspective than some other
    Mukul> route discovery. In other words, the origin sets the G flag
    Mukul> to one if this particular route discovery helps meet the
    Mukul> application defined goal \cite{rpl}. Thus, the G flag setting
    Mukul> helps an intermediate router choose which route discoveries
    Mukul> to participate in if it cannot participate in all route
    Mukul> discoveries. An intermediate router SHOULD participate in
    Mukul> route discoveries with G flag set to one (in preference to
    Mukul> ones with G flag set to zero)."

I concur.

{I can conceive of a situation where the target node creates a DODAG
with G=0, seeking the originating end, but this is outside of the scope of
what P2P describes.}

-- 
]       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.