IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building as a new ROLL WG document

Anders Brandt <Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com> Fri, 08 February 2013 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com>
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 B169021F85B2 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:56:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 SKb1YZLC4gWw for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maildk.sigmadesigns.com (maildk.sigmadesigns.com [195.215.56.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F124121F859C for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:56:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Anders Brandt <Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>, "robert.cragie@gridmerge.com" <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Adoption of draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building as a new ROLL WG document
Thread-Index: Ac4ERwPxNgU2iwXiS92qsW9XbB2IZwADla0AAA4lboAAB7tSAAAdPxeAAC8ChPA=
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:56:12 +0000
Message-ID: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD0AD3CB49@cph-ex1>
References: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD0AD364D1@cph-ex1> <CADnDZ88yeDW1Wy521qZCfEnnfP03RpzdfHfC9=xUTy025nuWEg@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ8-j8uuM1=KpGYkOJXPqDn_evnY0+-9vFOHjj4ZgvStdag@mail.gmail.com> <5112D246.4090703@gridmerge.com> <CADnDZ88PSuXOj53BaGeTgX5QWUdJAGCf53u8-6s-vcfEBWJisA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ88PSuXOj53BaGeTgX5QWUdJAGCf53u8-6s-vcfEBWJisA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, da-DK
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.10.56]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD0AD3CB49cphex1_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building as a new ROLL WG document
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: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:56:23 -0000

Abdussalam,

>I agree that it is logical *to refer* and discuss applicability of RPL-P2P, but don't agree to change the aim
>of the draft from RPL to RPL-P2P.
>Do you think both protocols are similar, or do you think that RPL is not applicabile for home applications, just RPL-P2P?

I think that the protocols are not similar and I think that P2P-RPL is applicable for home applications.
Restating Robert's comment, the draft in its original form was a sort of problem statement which helps nobody designing anything.
The natural evolution of the draft was to describe how one could meet the requirements for home applications; and to the authors
of the draft, P2P-RPL seems to be the best choice for home applications.

I have no intention of preventing others from evaluating the applicability of RPL for home applications.

Thanks,
  Anders

From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 7. februar 2013 12:57
To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building as a new ROLL WG document

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com<mailto:robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>> wrote:
The applicability statement, when it was originally produced, identified issues with RPL as it stood then for applicability in home and building automation. This kicked off the development of the RPL-P2P work, which is more or less complete. Therefore it is logical to refer to this work in the updated document.

I agree that it is logical *to refer* and discuss applicability of RPL-P2P, but don't agree to change the aim of the draft from RPL to RPL-P2P. Do you think both protocols are similar, or do you think that RPL is not applicabile for home applications, just RPL-P2P?

AB

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email