Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B21A120019 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 03:44:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.996 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 t8Mkq0nfsJ1y for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 03:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 970DD120018 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 03:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id i11so5007159edq.0 for ; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 03:44:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=u09on4lEONpSXADyrEGGvs8pPGqOKYX6hNewVdUew4g=; b=DKv0H0FDanLnkxoTTM3mwj9dL8QDMFOunbS4aj3qLr7zI5GjpHcerRJhTKn4vBD8IB f9nONaIL3dINqebx1Q6Ehm3BPRJilwXCbw1q65iceNMEgY0gL7QUI3SFTASYdO0oDLlG UoUgIwAUQSBBoNNHrmk98ekcEVqUUUvKbXWNBdUDBmx5Pycgw/aQk7mYU4trEgfzA/2Y CskaPqqsnmRQPj6HVSJnPdA1DmGwf0dvrYy76r97Gh9SY9ToaqqnZDOvi2eZJP5HHtbv rvjYWuKmOZI783ZCfAZsUQLBmRghB24ssbc2fviWjZIxRMcuixKKCNA2mJyownFWMvAt P4+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=u09on4lEONpSXADyrEGGvs8pPGqOKYX6hNewVdUew4g=; b=Qsm7zB7S4kwE4nBsRI8ejtXTvBWWCDd3GxI41RJh74VpF0dVipngdLrMUrdDcQOvMv I/q69Mb3mfj1yp54GBJsPpu5vcxJ4Llev1R8jI/7Fqnc2LIVW0mtcVE15vt22Os5rQOI j82NfvtnwHjdOkgUTjxo9rfXOu7ojBN/JETwYTmfcnN4Zsz+EaeU5LwiJBodlU/zDHM0 wt30zyoROakX9NEt+xv5UNE2cwfNKYtU+EpzL0L5nAkTsuoHrrzPFKp2GVBh561/MUFo v+ASCxpd/VenfBvMd63u0g+55PvVuZbVx39ZbtvqhjbJgoKRvQr7/2apBciXU3h0h+m6 G3qw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW0Ej1mjNFXVIKaVNl/lki9ALL19StQPhAxnzxM0AvMMHQcLYoH nRJ+Zn3fFzOlggy+U2CSFkyXRIR9aaBBEtZhMLXTyg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxZ4UcqFuxRUwhkFj87prwo61Z8RaVLx8Vn0Kdpz9x042i2leA9goYbHOAMV6di9UzG/gkAydwkfJuReoYwCTs= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ca45:: with SMTP id j5mr47340210edt.217.1562237044136; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 03:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:44:03 -0400 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: References: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF0BFA2@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:44:03 -0400 Message-ID: To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001224a6058cd8a8fa" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 10:44:08 -0000 --0000000000001224a6058cd8a8fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On June 27, 2019 at 1:54:11 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ( pthubert@cisco.com) wrote: Hi! RPL is designed to operate in very different environment, and some LLNs can be very slow, very lossy or even both. This is why RFC 6550 refrains from being too specific. Maybe it is good enough to add text indicating that the values used for DCO are expected to be similar/consistent with those used in DAO? I agree with Pascal. In fact, the diversity of environments not only makes it very hard to be too specific, but it is one of the reasons the WG has produced Applicability Statements for them: not all deployments are the same. Thanks! Alvaro. --0000000000001224a6058cd8a8fa Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
On June 27, 2019 at 1:54:11 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthuber= t) (pthubert@cisco.com) wrote:

Hi!

RPL is designed to oper= ate in very different environment, and some LLNs can be very slow, very los= sy or even both. This is why RFC 6550 refrains from being too specific.

=

Maybe it is goo= d enough to add text indicating that the values used for DCO are expected t= o be similar/consistent with those used in DAO?

I agree with Pascal.=C2=A0 In fact, th= e diversity of environments not only makes it very hard to be too specific,= but it is one of the reasons the WG has produced Applicability Statements = for them: not all deployments are the same.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--0000000000001224a6058cd8a8fa--