Re: [Roll] Discussion/Comments For draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03

["Jonathan Hui (johui)" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, MPL will work for both shared and non-shared media.

--
Jonathan Hui

On Jan 28, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I don't mean to mix between the network and protocol. This MPL does it
> use both work for shared medium and non-shared medium. Does its
> forwarding functions can work for both or not, this is my concerns not
> concerned about the LLNs?
> 
> AB
> 
> On 1/28/13, Jonathan Hui (johui) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> MPL targets LLNs (as the L in MPL indicates).  Today's LLNs typically
>> communicate over shared media, but I don't see any reason why LLNs (and MPL)
>> should be limited to shared media.
>> 
>> --
>> Jonathan Hui
>> 
>> On Jan 28, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jonathan
>>> 
>>> so do you mean the MPL is for both shared and non shared mediums, and
>>> using Trickel for the mulicast purpose
>>> 
>>> AB
>>> 
>>> On 1/28/13, Jonathan Hui (johui) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> While RFC 6206 is particularly concerned about communication over shared
>>>> media, Trickle is not specific to communication over shared media.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Jonathan Hui
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear I-D Authors,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I done a little review so far and need answers to continue, as the
>>>>> ROLL chair asked for some discussion on our WG draft, which I will try
>>>>> to do so far.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I see that the draft's applicability statement does not include
>>>>> *shared medium*, but the *trickel algorithm* works for shared medium,
>>>>> which in RFC6206 states that in the abstract. So if this MPL uses
>>>>> trickel do you think it still will work in a non-shared communication
>>>>> medium LLN, Please advise?
>>>>> 
>>>>> otherwise I recommend to add the words as in trickel: *lossy shared
>>>>> medium*
>>>>> As in the appplicability statement section 3
>>>>> 
>>>>> AB> Recommend Amend to>
>>>>> This protocol is an IPv6 multicast forwarding protocol for nodes in
>>>>> shared medium within the low-power and lossy network domain. By
>>>>> implementing a controlled dissemination using the Trickle algorithm,
>>>>> this protocol is designed for networks that
>>>>> communicate using low-power and lossy links with widely varying
>>>>> topologies in both the space and time dimensions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> AB> question on section 3> I am not sure I understand *the space and
>>>>> time dimensions*, Do you mean that the topology or multicast-nodes
>>>>> is/are changing in space, please give me an example use-case?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> 
>>>>> AB
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 1/22/13, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/report/8
>>>>>>> contains the list of open tickets.  There are some threads
>>>>>>> linked in each ticket.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103
>>>>>>> trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS
>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07424.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This ticket has had no significant discussion.  Is there an issue
>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/104
>>>>>>> security considerations.
>>>>>>> We need to have a discussion about what are the implications
>>>>>>> of this protocol.  See next message.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/105
>>>>>>> trickle-mcast: how to determine scope of MPL domain
>>>>>>> We have several options from Robert Craigie in the ticket system.
>>>>>>> Alternatives 3 and 4 were discussed, and I think that we preferred
>>>>>>> option 4 with the multicast option always present.
>>>>>>> Please post if you disagree.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/106
>>>>>>> trickle-mcast: always use 6in6 encapsulation for non-link-local
>>>>>>> multicast
>>>>>>> no clear resolution, but ticket #105 suggests answer.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/108
>>>>>>> trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field?
>>>>>>> suggested answer was YES.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/107
>>>>>>> trickle-mcast: should multiple parameter sets be supported
>>>>>>> my conclusion: There is has been little discussion about this
>>>>>>>   issue. My inclination is to not include multiple sets at this
>>>>>>>   time.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/109
>>>>>>> trickle-mcast: should all MPL packets be destined to
>>>>>>> all-MPL-forwarders
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>>>>>>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.
>>>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll