Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL WG document

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Wed, 13 April 2011 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=077c36615=mukul@uwm.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71361E06D9 for <roll@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.227
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jSpcSs822Bbv for <roll@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (ip2mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48BEE06D4 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([129.89.7.133]) by ip2mta.uwm.edu with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2011 07:16:43 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482F512E3B3; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:16:43 -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 fnQfQgcLUKnm; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:16:42 -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 9C90512E3B0; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:16:42 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:16:42 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com>
Message-ID: <776532039.24589.1302697002159.JavaMail.root@mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <7E3F64B9-368C-4F80-9D6E-A2D8517C26C1@sensinode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.91]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.9_GA_2686 (ZimbraWebClient - SAF3 (Win)/6.0.9_GA_2686)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a 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: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:16:51 -0000

Zach

As I tried to convey to you in an earlier message, the measurement draft specifies a mechanism to measure the cost of an "existing" route between two nodes. Before I invoke the P2P mechanism to discover a "new" route between two nodes, I may want to measure the cost of any "existing" route (this could be a DAG-based route or an earlier established P2P route) between those nodes. I will invoke potentially expensive P2P route discovery only if I am not happy with the cost of the existing route. Also, the cost of the existing route will tell me what constraints must/should be satisfied by the route to be discovered.

My understanding is that you would like the cost measurement of any existing route to be integrated with the discovery of new P2P route. It will be great if you could also indicate how this should be done.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zach Shelby" <zach@sensinode.com>
To: "JP Vasseur" <jpv@cisco.com>
Cc: "ROLL WG" <roll@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:37:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL	WG document

JP,

Although I agree that route metric measurement is necessary for p2p, why in the world is this a separate document from the base p2p specification? Furthermore there seems to be plenty of inefficiency in creating a separate mechanism, and it should be explored how this could be integrated into the same message exchange for setting up the p2p DAG. 

Therefore I would be opposed to have a separate WG document for the measurement mechanism, instead I think this work should be better integrated into the base p2p specification. 

Authors, please kick me if I missed something here.

Zach

On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:56 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement has been discussed on the mailing list and is a normative
> reference of the P2P document.
> 
> Could you tell us if you are in favor/opposed to adopt draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as 
> a ROLL Working Group document ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

-- 
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://zachshelby.org  - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet"
Mobile: +358 40 7796297


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