Re: [Roll] Review of draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection

["S.V.R.Anand" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Pascal,

Thank you very much for addressing my concern and you can proceed with
the publication without further delay :) 

> What I do not see is the need for extra work to protect the path from the root to the node, but I agree that we could indicate that the node should advertise more than one parent and the root should retry over diverse SR paths, if that’s your point?
> 

Yes, the above indicative text will be very helpful as we are not
ignoring the coupling effect. While the draft need not go into the
specifics of all the possibilties, I feel bringing out the core issue is
important. 

Regards
Anand

On 21-08-29 09:40:57, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello Anand,
> 
> Certains the main DAG will undergo changes and transient localized failures.
> 
> Since there is no objective of RAW on the main DAG we’re ok. In those transient times the Root will not be able to see trouble in a Track and the Track will have to survive on its redundancy.
> 
> RPL already enables redundancy between the root and a node, it’s up to the root to select one of the possible source route path that it sees.
> 
> If the Root completely looses connectivity to a node in a Track, it may not be able to clean it instantly but it can route around it. I have a lot of new text on maintenance that we’ll discuss it at the interim.
> 
> What I do not see is the need for extra work to protect the path from the root to the node, but I agree that we could indicate that the node should advertise more than one parent and the root should retry over diverse SR paths, if that’s your point?
> 
> Please let me know, I’d wish to publish Monday :)
> 
> Keep safe,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> > Le 27 août 2021 à 08:04, S.V.R.Anand <anandsvr=[e-mail]> a écrit :
> >
> > Hello Michael, and all,
> >
> > At the time of writing the paper, we also wrote up first-cut version of the
> > draft. But we never got to publish it in any of the working groups.
> >
> > I will be very happy to share the draft, which is still in the nascent form, and
> > get initial feedback on whether it is suitable for an RFC.
> >
> > Regards
> > Anand
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 03:00:32PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> S.V.R.Anand <anandsvr=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> In our lab we developed an in-band OAM telemetry scheme for LLNs that we
> >>> named it Co-iOAM. The idea is very simple but it has been very effective
> >>> in monitoring a real-world deployment of RPL/6LoWPAN network that we
> >>> setup.
> >>
> >>> ["Co-iOAM: In-situ telemetry metadata transport for resource constrained
> >>> networks within IETF standards framework",
> >>> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8328276]
> >>
> >> Behind a paywall.
> >> Is this suitable for an RFC?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> >>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Roll mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll