Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-10.txt

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Wed, 29 April 2015 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D961ACD0D for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xgkPEyULor87 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net [194.109.24.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BAB31A0123 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.203]) by smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net with ESMTP id MjSm1q0054NtgTm01jSmRj; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:26:46 +0200
Received: from [2001:983:a264:1:1d27:be7f:cf0c:3205] by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:26:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:26:46 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <1A7E9864-B64C-4DE1-A030-DFA4789DB09E@sics.se>
References: <20150427065614.24827.70189.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1A7E9864-B64C-4DE1-A030-DFA4789DB09E@sics.se>
Message-ID: <dfd9b06c1aed2187dacd229f8ddbf612@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (E/1K/uhgSI1fNpxroX0Hxy+nEOiVvVbb)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/N6ERCBxDphxXmXrTUYXcXdUXsKo>
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-10.txt
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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, 29 Apr 2015 07:26:52 -0000

Hi Joakim,

thanks for your remark.
A channel models the transport through space of e/m waves between two 
interfaces.
An asymmetric channel corresponds with asymmetric transport.

I prefer channel over link, as link usually does not include the concept 
of transport.
I agree that opinions may differ, but the text is clear as it is?

Concerning ETX.
The authors and other people generally recommend ETX. Do you have a 
better proposal backed up by evidence?
I will be happy to hear about it.

Greetings,

peter

Joakim Eriksson schreef op 2015-04-27 09:09:
> Hi,
> 
> Had a very brief read and have a quick question:
> 
> "Packets from asymmetric and/or unstable channels SHOULD be deleted at 
> layer 2."
> 
> Do we really mean channel here? asymmetric channel sounds strange - I 
> guess
> it should be asymmetric link and/or unstable (high in interference?) 
> channels?
> 
> Otherwise I might have missed something in the terminology.
> 
> And ETX as the recommended objective function is better than OF0 but
> ETX is not giving a good network topology in some cases and since this
> is aiming at control I do not think it is the best choice. 
> Interactivity needs
> less loss than the objective of being energy efficient.
> 
> Best regards,
> — Joakim Eriksson, SICS
> 
> 
> 
>> On 27 Apr 2015, at 08:56, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy 
>> networks Working Group of the IETF.
>> 
>>        Title           : Applicability Statement: The use of the RPL 
>> protocol suite in Home Automation and Building Control
>>        Authors         : Anders Brandt
>>                          Emmanuel Baccelli
>>                          Robert Cragie
>>                          Peter van der Stok
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-10.txt
>> 	Pages           : 32
>> 	Date            : 2015-04-26
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   The purpose of this document is to provide guidance in the selection
>>   and use of protocols from the RPL protocol suite to implement the
>>   features required for control in building and home environments.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building/
>> 
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-10
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-10
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>> submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll