[Roll] Open topics for discussion in ROLL

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
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 6EA781A02ED for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.323
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 KYPW27ngxZPF for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22f.google.com (mail-ve0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4802E1A02DE for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id oz11so11398727veb.34 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mCnIGws80y6nnu9bGTs2AEsOt3V8gjH3hINTwS3/Go4=; b=GgInIwAwKy1njjFJo/W8izbNVLAYNI4+hZCzebNgEjTV6xNTrH7zxx+haM99lwx4ki zVn/9+xgl7ieEXxWcmUeqg1yxshciTB1JzZbFkBburFdB243Fuf1qyOJCZNddO/p/wri YKfBTPLYYLGwxSBpOiB9N0N6zM/R/LCSa2N6YEnMNMtGA2GHd1oZ+W/vXQDurtMzjCfw /fCc19h1iB7Pjzk1T+LVFBhaBE25flf3nbC2PvcvruhO9u0CMHPAkrK/qUyimhTLf3pj qyACTRiUCR/69FHnGigwyfqmKeueJyMn8ZKyf7UOf8FdWLIFTw/8cPCBLC5dvsPEQ4+/ RQmQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.77.238 with SMTP id v14mr3130995vew.27.1397678063798; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.221.16.3 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:54:23 -0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUepAazTGBw82K+rCYY+6NmS6KEiMkHTZKQOLHbLv+t5fw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
To: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e516880ce6b04f72e4819
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/QIrWfyORD8rCK2FWH2fB47ZiZ8s
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: [Roll] Open topics for discussion in ROLL
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: 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, 16 Apr 2014 19:54:31 -0000

*Hi,We would like to let you know a summary about the open topics for
discussion in the WG: 1. draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration.
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/>
- last thread- 1.
[http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08604.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08604.html>]“...
Typical open topics are:1) Effect of inconsistent parameter set among nodes
  (transitional state / update failure)2) Add/Remove of new MPL domain3)
Format to encode timers  (-> DHC wg)...” 1. DHC wg opinion:
[http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08609.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08609.html>] 2.
Additional thread:
[http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08384.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08384.html>] 1.
draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy/>-
last thread -
[http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08623.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08623.html>] “...the
following points have been changed: - terminology and description text have
been improved.- The concept of a MPL4 router is introduced which
automatically finds all interfaces belonging to the zone in which MPL scope
4 messages are distributed…” 1. draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template/>
- last thread
-[http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08566.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08566.html>]“...Some
specific todo:     1) applicability documents need to reference
roll-security-threats,        (some still reference security-framework
document)     2) some (common) text in the applicability document needs to
explain how        the applicability document relates to other
documents....”4. draft-doi-roll-mpl-nan-requirements
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-nan-requirements/> -
thread:  [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08377.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08377.html>]“...The
issue I have is how to deploy a mesh network over even larger network,
maybe up to 10,000 nodes, with very low application traffic. At the same
time, we need communication channels for relatively-low latency (few
seconds) broadcast for commanding and enough reliable broadcast file
transfer. The draft draft-doi-roll-mpl-nan-requirements-00 introduces the
requirement….”5. draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology/>[first
thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08494.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08494.html>]“...is
there interest in pursuing this line of investigation at this time? We had
previously put investigation of this on hold until we figured out a number
of other things.   Please read this document, and consider whether this
document would help advance this, or if we need one or a      number of
approaches. Do we have a good enough problem statement?...”[ additional
thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08522.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08522.html> ]“...I
also wonder the method for mixing storing and non-storing modes that we
described in the draft is feasible or not. We suggested a new MOP that
requires a few minor changes from existing storing mode and non-storing
mode...”Additional Topics 1. 6. Interest in opportunistic routing? 1.
[http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08574.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08574.html>] “...If
there is interest, we can come up with a simplified version of the design
presented in the paper, and propose a way to integrate it in RPL through
only a few minor additions. To be more specific, the simplified version
would use the existing RPL routing tables rather than Bloom filters, and
would be MAC-layer agnostic (the only assumption being that the MAC layer
supports anycast)....” 1. 7. draft on selective DIS?*




* [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08594.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08594.html>] “...here
is an expired draft that I intend to revive
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goyal-roll-dis-modifications-01.
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goyal-roll-dis-modifications-01>It
basically consists in enriching the DIS a little bit, by allowing it to be
more selective.  One benefit is that it saves a lot of energy in a dense
environment when a new node joins an established network. …”8. Interest in
asymmetrical links support?
[http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08596.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08596.html>]“...The
work was triggered by a discussion with Don Sturek, but failed to attract
WG attention at the time. I can revive it if interests grows? ...”*9.
Multiple PIO payloads in a single DIO

[http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg08399.html]

“...As far as I can see, there is nothing in RFC6550 to forbid multiple
PIO options in a DIO, and therefore in a single DODAG.
Other than renumbering, it seems that most use cases where there could be
multiple prefixes present in an LLN will use multiple DODAGs.
If renumbering is the only use for mutiple PIO options, then it seems that
supporting at most 2 or 3 prefixes per DODAG seems reasonable….”

10. Open tickets: [http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/report/2]






*We would appreciate your comments about it.Happy Easter! :-)Thanks and
Regards,Michael & Ines.*