[Roll] Closure text for ticket #92

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Wed, 11 April 2012 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=441eb7f02=mukul@uwm.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A0811E8109 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.266
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z74ST4oJvLiW for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (ip2mta.uwm.edu []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F149A11E809D for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF632B3F0A; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:29:30 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([]) by localhost (mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cH2QE3Y-69PC; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:29:30 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu []) by mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630802B3EF6; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:29:30 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:29:30 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
Message-ID: <264116309.1902104.1334186970290.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <287665186.1851186.1333901473996.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.13_GA_2918 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.13_GA_2918)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] Closure text for ticket #92
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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, 11 Apr 2012 23:29:31 -0000

#92: Is it possible to make P2P-RPL independent of trickle algorithm

No. P2P-RPL depends on DAG creation for route discovery which inturn inherently depends on trickle algorithm.


 Another point that has been discussed today during the ROLL meeting, is  that some people may find other mechanisms than trickle more efficient to  flood the RDO.
 Could we let the door opened to other flooding optimization mechanism, or  explicitly say that the trickle mechanism MUST be used ?

 I think inherent dependence on the trickle mechanism is apparent because  of the fact that the route discovery takes place by forming a temporary  DAG. DAG creation (or DIO generation) depends on trickle algorithm. So,  P2P-RPL also depends on trickle algorithm. P2P-RPL being an extension of  core RPL, I dont think there is a way to separate P2P-RPL from trickle  algorithm.

Fine. If this is needed for RPL compliancy, then I agree.