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

JP Vasseur <> Wed, 16 May 2012 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C36321F865D for <>; Wed, 16 May 2012 06:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.585
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ohXi-JeOYmQR for <>; Wed, 16 May 2012 06:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A72721F865B for <>; Wed, 16 May 2012 06:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3811; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337173457; x=1338383057; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Q/MUexIRkI79TAk96949uRb/VndUMsodb5DtLKzTztQ=; b=PjeM2o7HcfV43dQFJgODUQ94vy/4EnqlnJVeDZTvYRNmzluhuH6LOp3Y 2sv5DABEXxtgHOTJw+RGuyPNQGBdEO6F26uHDq5f5xKq9wrZ1hX0kXmHM m3BwtI9ecJiuHiMNKychRXV+6aASgiiNYx6BdX1v/zporwc5pddfGWSVL c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkYFACals0+Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABEgx2wZIEHghUBAQEDARIBZgULCxguVwYuB4dnBZsXoB2LHRmEXGMElX2FdYhigWmCa4Fd
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,603,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="4582950"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 16 May 2012 13:04:16 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4GD4GoL013243; Wed, 16 May 2012 13:04:16 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 16 May 2012 15:04:16 +0200
Received: from [] ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 16 May 2012 15:04:15 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: JP Vasseur <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:04:13 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Thomas Heide Clausen <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2012 13:04:15.0936 (UTC) FILETIME=[65AF8400:01CD3364]
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 13:04:18 -0000

Dear Thomas,

On May 16, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:

> Dear JP and Michael,
> Thank you for your mail.
> On May 16, 2012, at 09:18 , JP Vasseur wrote:
>> Dear Thomas,
>> On May 11, 2012, at 8:25 AM, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
>>> Dear JP, Michael, all
>>> Upon JPs invitation, draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences was presented and discussed at the Paris meeting.
>>> The authors consider the document complete and "done", and are looking to take it forward in the IETF 
>>> process for publication as "Informational RFC" in the very near future. 
>>> We would therefore like to ask the WG chairs, if the ROLL WG is willing to accept and progress this 
>>> document towards publication?
>> Thanks for your suggestion. So far we haven't see a lot of discussion/interest from the WG but your request is
>> perfectly fair.
> Thank you - I aim to be fair.
>> So far there are no details on the scenarios and testing environments that led to the issues that 
>> you reported, thus I would suggest you to first include them so that people interested could be able to reproduce
>> it. Once the drat is updated, we'll be happy to pool the WG.
>> Does that make sense ?
> Not really. Let me explain my disagreement.
> We tried RPL (and, I note, several different independent implementations of RPL) in a number of different scenarios and deployments, and observed the behaviors exhibited - noting that what we observed across the different implementations, scenarios and deployments was fairly universal.
> We then went back to the specification, to understand these behaviors in detail, and understand their universality as independent from a specific scenario or deployment or implementation - but rather, as artifacts of the RPL protocol design.
> We therefore believe that _any_ deployment, scenario or testing environment of RPL needs to pay attention to the issues presented, and find a way of addressing them. The way of addressing these issues in a given deployment or scenario would be appropriate for an "applicability statement" for that deployment or scenario.

JP> Thanks for the clarification; that being said, for the WG to make sure that nothing is "scenario" dependent and the outcome could indeed apply to all scenarios,
it might be worth being more explicit. For example, you pointed out to the MTU issue, to which I mentioned that 15.4g would bring a solution, so you may want to 
explain that you did not use 15.4g and there are a number of such examples ….

> (For example, a deployment using only L2s which provides guaranteed bi-directional links  for L3 would address this by in the applicability statement stating "As all L2-links are guaranteed bi-directional, this addresses the issues raised in section 9 in draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences".)
> Thus, we believe that it would actually be misleading (not to mention, unnecessarily verbose) to put the "details on the scenarios and testing environments" into this I-D.
> Doing so would mislead the reader to believe that the issues presented only manifest themselves in those precise scenarios - which definitely isn't the case.

JP> see the previous comment and tell us what you think; we could provide other examples.

Note that we do not oppose to asking to the WG; we just request you first to add additional information to proceed forward.


JP and Michael.


> Best,
> Thomas
>> Thanks.
>> JP and Michael.
>>> Best,
>>> Thomas, Ulrich, Yuichi, Jiazi and Axel