Re: [Roll] draft-tripathi-roll-rpl-simulation-06
Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.stanford.edu> Wed, 16 February 2011 23:31 UTC
Return-Path: <gnawali@cs.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE583A6D98 for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:31:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6O6yB40CU8cC for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:31:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU (cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU [171.64.64.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C363F3A6CE4 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:31:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172]) by cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <gnawali@cs.stanford.edu>) id 1Ppqqt-00058d-34 for roll@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:32:07 -0800
Received: by iwc10 with SMTP id 10so1997216iwc.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:32:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.225.133 with SMTP id is5mr1746285icb.135.1297899126213; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:32:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.59.15 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:31:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1B43B188-2AC4-43DF-B61C-7ACDDEC512B0@ece.drexel.edu>
References: <90B88918-D3B5-4A2F-88EF-95F26E1B5FB8@cisco.com> <AANLkTik47eTqUbZ0YtGW3HQub5Kw1uJQ7ogaP5A68vjq@mail.gmail.com> <1B43B188-2AC4-43DF-B61C-7ACDDEC512B0@ece.drexel.edu>
From: Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:31:46 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=DYApusW7cqWGAuG6r_J+y5sbUWFyikhua_ALN@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jaudelice de Oliveira <jau@ece.drexel.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Scan-Signature: 26b8f8cb9d50f38c95a96ded60a4c5d6
Cc: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] draft-tripathi-roll-rpl-simulation-06
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Feb 2011 23:31:38 -0000
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Jaudelice de Oliveira <jau@ece.drexel.edu> wrote: > Hello Omprakash, > On Feb 13, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Omprakash Gnawali wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:46 AM, JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com> wrote: > > Dear all, > Since draft-tripathi-roll-rpl-simulation-06 has been discussed for quite > some time and is now fully stable, the authors intend to request the > independent publication of the document. Do not hesitate to chime in if you > are opposed to it. > > I thought there were some serious questions raised about the > methodology etc. Not sure if they have been addressed. > > Can you elaborate a bit on your comment above so I can tell you how the > document > was revised accordingly. We did address all comments we were given, > including yours. > BTW: thanks again for your feedback. >From ROLL Virtual Working Group Minutes - June 2010: " ... David C.: Can I respond to that? It's wonderful to be driving these decisions from data. Great to see these results and this process going. To me, the question isn't whether we should have a simulation working group document, but in what form. The issue is that the conclusions we reach are so based on a set of assumptions. Underlying topology, churn, traffic pattern, etc. What I'd like to see is to build up an understanding of what needs to be in the WG document to be useful. We should set out what the simulation methodology is, this is more important than any particular study. David C.: That's my biggest concern, going from the individual draft into a document that the working group could benefit from. There should be a WG document on anaylsis and how to do this going forward, and I'd want to hear from the WG an understanding of what is important. ... " On this mailing list on 14 Jun 2010 14:04:01 -0700: " ... 1) My concerns with the methodology remain; assuming independent packet losses over 10-minute intervals can have significant effects on how a protocol reacts (e.g., NUD). It makes me unable to make strong conclusions from any of the rest of the results. 2) "To simulate a more realistic scenario, 20% of the generated packets by each node are destined to the root, and the remaining 80% of the packets are uniformly assigned as destined to nodes other than the root." Can you provide some insight into why this is more "realistic?" Networks rarely follow uniform distributions, and using one can make you reach the wrong conclusion (e.g., algorithm X scales when it doesn't in real patterns). Note that these are basic concerns with the methodology to obtain the results. Phil " - om_p
- [Roll] draft-tripathi-roll-rpl-simulation-06 JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] draft-tripathi-roll-rpl-simulation-06 Omprakash Gnawali
- Re: [Roll] draft-tripathi-roll-rpl-simulation-06 Jaudelice de Oliveira
- Re: [Roll] draft-tripathi-roll-rpl-simulation-06 Omprakash Gnawali