Re: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences

Philip Levis <> Wed, 16 May 2012 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82DC421F866C for <>; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.328
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O6qu5YHprpB1 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU (cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F3221F8589 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dn0a210362.sunet ([]) by cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <>) id 1SUhcj-0005ee-Qq; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:02:53 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Philip Levis <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:02:56 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: JP Vasseur <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Scan-Signature: acf3039aa8d32d1ac60a71149e52b94c
Cc: roll WG <>, Michael Richardson <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences
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: Wed, 16 May 2012 17:02:59 -0000

On May 16, 2012, at 6:54 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:
> Well put it differently, it would be beneficial to provide more details on your testing scenarios for the WG to make sure that nothing 
> is "scenario-dependent" and to make sure that the outcome could indeed apply to all scenarios, it might be worth being more explicit.
> Could you do that before polling the WG ?

I think an example of what JP's talking about might be something such as the question I raised in Paris: what constitutes a "down link" in the testing? Thomas' response was "no ack after L2 retransmissions"; this is an assumption about behavior. How many retransmissions? What was the time spacing? It's not hard to configure 802.11, for example, such that L2 back off has only a tiny chance of successful delivery in the case of a hidden terminal. Most wireless protocol implementations today understand these issues and rely on much longer time frames to consider a link "down."