IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression as a new ROLL WG document

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Sat, 03 September 2011 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=2203449e0=mukul@uwm.edu>
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 A882921F8997 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 07:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.679, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 fKoq3I9i+NE8 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 07:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (ip2mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54FF21F877F for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 07:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (HELO mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu) ([127.0.0.1]) by ip2mta.uwm.edu with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2011 09:47:30 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9548412E3B2; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 09:47:30 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id asEzDr-SYqry; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 09:47:30 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.165]) by mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB3512E3B1; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 09:47:30 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 09:47:30 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: Ietf Roll <ietfroll@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1128231318.183084.1315061250217.JavaMail.root@mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1315031900.16281.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.91]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.13_GA_2918 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.13_GA_2918)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: roll WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression 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: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 14:45:53 -0000

I would like to respectfully submit that I find it very hard to accept the argument that a protocol should not be extended because the devices that dont implement the extension can't talk to devices that do. The compression scheme we proposed seems like a good optimization to us for some of the applications we are concerned with. Whether this is absolutely the best approach for all possible RPL applications, I dont know. As Pascal suggested, it is important to compress both data and control messages. May be GHC is a better approach. We will find out.

There was a lot of opposition to adding more stuff to core RPL. The (valid) argument was that any further additions would be introduced as supplementary documents. Now that core RPL is (almost) done, objections in the name of interoperability are being raised to deny useful extensions of the protocol and even to attack the core protocol itself. I find it to be a sorry state of affairs.

Thanks
Mukul   

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ietf Roll" <ietfroll@yahoo.com>
To: "C Chauvenet" <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>, "Thomas Heide Clausen" <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
Cc: "roll WG" <roll@ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2011 1:38:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression as a new	ROLL WG document






Cedric wrote: 

That's said, I don't see any problem for trying to design some improvements for RPL. 
I think this rule is the same for every protocols. 

[rav] Yes and RPL certainly needs improvements. :-)  And compressing out a bunch of unused bits would be a good improvement. 

As already mentioned in this discussion, it's all about *optional* improvements. 
Designing new mechanism like compression doesn't mean that you HAVE to implement them. 
So I don't  see why nodes won't interoperate if they all rely on the same RPL RFC. 

[rav] Yes you are correct that nodes can interoperate if they all adhere to the same RFC (or in RPLs case - lots of RFCs already - and more if you want to do P2P and more if you want to to do non-storing mode, but I digress). 
         We are talking about a change to the core specification that will cause interoperability problems from the outset.  If I rely on the uncompressed spec RFC (oh wait, it isn't an RFC yet) I can't speak to you if you rely on this new compression 
         scheme.  If we decide to go forward this this, then we have to have some way to negotiate between nodes to say if you are or are not using compression (oops another I-D). OR everyone has to implement both which goes against the notion 
         that we are designing constrained nodes. 

         If this compression is a good idea, then let's make it part of the core spec, get rid of the extra wasted bits and try to make RPL useful on constrained nodes.  This draft, if it is adopted by the WG, should deprecate the RPL core spec and fix it. 

rav 

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email