Re: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec

Michael Richardson <> Sun, 10 June 2012 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE2221F84FE for <>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.646
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H2ikROS8TSDu for <>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114F321F84FD for <>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1FAF836F for <>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:46:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 66D109823C; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:49:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55BD898239 for <>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:49:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:49:16 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 23:49:18 -0000

>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Thubert <(pthubert)" <>> writes:
    Pascal> My understanding is that it is simpler to just check the OCP
    Pascal> than first match the OCP in the config option and then go
    Pascal> figure the metric in the metric option. 

I don't understand.

    Pascal> Not that it is a huge overhead but I fail to understand why
    Pascal> you claim that the single OCP is simpler. 

I don't claim it, I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

    Pascal> And no, I do not see that splitting in a future when
    Pascal> implementations are already shipping will be easy;  


    Pascal> a mixed deployment would have to fall back to legacy from
    Pascal> the root down, meaning that it will hardly ever evolve.  
    Pascal> LLN Devices that we install now some of the deployments (eg
    Pascal> industrial) are expected last for 20+ years with minimum
    Pascal> (no) intervention on them but maybe battery changes. 

I don't expect any deployed device to change.
They won't change for a new OF or OCP, etc. 
What would happen is that new deployments might use it.

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.