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

Martin Heusse <Martin.Heusse@imag.fr> Mon, 21 May 2012 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Heusse@imag.fr>
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 C5B7421F85F0 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aAgC3yiHQdYm for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shiva.imag.fr (mx1.imag.fr [IPv6:2001:660:5301:6::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E0121F85C3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from globule.imag.fr (globule.imag.fr [129.88.34.238]) by shiva.imag.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4LA8vlL026299 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 May 2012 12:08:57 +0200
Received: from scilly.imag.fr (scilly.imag.fr [129.88.48.164]) (authenticated bits=0) by globule.imag.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4LAMKBq007053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 21 May 2012 12:22:20 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Martin Heusse <Martin.Heusse@imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <CAErDfUT4QGfLT66eLyf5UBzjyp6RZKodDQzhm=RpsWHsH6O5zg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:18:34 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <68731800-504B-4A57-8A58-053B4C7A7861@imag.fr>
References: <258D7E2F-F0C7-49EA-B831-81070C86EDB3@thomasclausen.org> <2257A578-B2DF-4145-8393-9BB5D7E1CFBD@cisco.com> <2225986E-992E-43C7-B0CA-9CDA91CE1F3A@thomasclausen.org> <B1B81482-0F7E-4BCE-BBA7-B21949E3C16C@cisco.com> <0958556A-7D9A-4E8B-8091-1D6EC0B813B4@thomasclausen.org> <ACBA7834-F4A1-4D9C-80D6-E76C793A6770@cisco.com> <91E71E23-8797-4C70-A1F8-1CE64BD4ED39@thomasclausen.org> <1D6FEB49-CB62-4FFA-9E34-3FEF82DB644C@cisco.com> <BE51553F-67BE-4652-A8E8-9654BF953A96@thomasclausen.org> <78FB3B50-3150-4729-A089-D9EAF0B02BB6@cs.stanford.edu> <2AF45E51-6C3B-48D9-908F-117ECF0CABAA@imag.fr> <CAErDfUT4QGfLT66eLyf5UBzjyp6RZKodDQzhm=RpsWHsH6O5zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (shiva.imag.fr [129.88.30.5]); Mon, 21 May 2012 12:08:57 +0200 (CEST)
X-IMAG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact MI2S MIM for more information
X-MailScanner-ID: q4LA8vlL026299
X-IMAG-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-IMAG-MailScanner-SpamCheck:
X-IMAG-MailScanner-From: martin.heusse@imag.fr
MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1338199738.1931@zj5cuAVxjQIgOBmtRPhDhQ
Cc: roll WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences
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: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:16:53 -0000

Not at all.

I wrote that email firstly to react on Phil Levis' partial reaction. The subject was when to send and how to handle DAOs (comment 12 of draft-clausen). As far as I know, this is orthogonal to the trickle algorithm, isn't it? 

But then I wondered if maybe an applicability / recommendation draft would give more precise information on this topic (which could make sense, considering the fact that downward traffic is viewed as a requirement in the context of the applicability draft). It seems to me this is not the case, although I may have missed something. 

Best regards,
Martin


Le 19 mai 2012 à 01:37, Omprakash Gnawali a écrit :

> Martin,
> 
> Is your concern that 6550 and
> draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-03 do not say the Trickle
> interval should be a-b ms and hence it is easy to use a bad value and
> bring the whole network down or make it run inefficiently?