Re: [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas (and Michael),

I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL.  The draft was written carefully
to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL.  That said, the deployment we
are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL (non-storing)
and I think many others will find the information exchanged between
neighbors using MLE as useful.

Don





On 6/15/12 6:15 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>> 
>>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen <[e-mail]> writes:
>>    Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not
>>    Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if
>>    Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then
>>    Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be
>>    Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (&
>>    Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally).
>> 
>> Thomas, you will note that:
>>  1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push
>>     back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a
>>type/code.
>>  2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL.
>> 
>
>In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such
>that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context
>(special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and
>specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment.
>
>> I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange.
>
>I don't.
>
>Thomas
>
>> -- 
>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>> 
>