Re: [Roll] Working Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-of0-05

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Phil:

I'm clearly fine with the grammatical ones, thanks for this.

For 2) I am also fine with your proposal, if no one present opposition,
I'll do the change.

For 5) I am not sure I understand you. Could you please rephrase?

Thanks a bunch,

Pascal
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7011357/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Levis [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:05 PM
> To: JP Vasseur; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: ROLL WG
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Working Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-of0-05
> 
> 
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:03 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:
> 
> > Dear all,
> >
> > This document has been stable for quite some time and the latest
revision
> has addressed all comments received so far. This starts a 2-week
Working
> Group Last call on draft-ietf-roll-of0-05, that will end on March 8 at
noon ET.
> >
> > Please send your comments to the authors and copy the mailing list.
> 
> 5 comments (some just grammatical, some significant)
> 
> 1. "the Objective Function selects the DODAG" -> "An Objective
Function
> selects the DODAG"
> 
> 2. "OF0 uses a MinHopRankIncrease of 0x100 so that Rank value can be
> stored in one octet.  This allows up to at least 16 hops when each hop
has the
> worst Rank Increment of 16."
> 
> - This worries me. It means that networks with incompatible OFs, or
which
> have to go to the last resort OF, have a maximum hopcount of 16. I'd
> recommend that instead the worst Rank increment be made smaller, in
> order to support more hops. E.g., 4/64. When we built CTP we made sure
it
> could support more than 16 hops because there were established
> deployments which were > 32 hops (e.g., the network measuring the
Golden
> Gate Bridge). Is there any basis for this particular breakdown? Are we
really
> going to go back to RIP? Putting the reasoning in the document isn't a
good
> idea, but I'd like to know what it is so I can feel comfortable with
it.
> 
> 3. "It MAY stretch its step of Rank " -> "A node MAY stretch its step
of Rank"
> 
> 4. "   o  The preferred parent MUST be ignored.
> 
>    o  A Router that is not in the same DODAG as the preferred parent,
>       either in the current or a subsequent iteration, MUST be
ignored."
> 
> - I'd suggest writing these as "The backup next_hop MUST NOT be the
> preferred parent" and "The backup next_hop MUST be in the same DODAG
> iteration as the preferred parent." It's not 100% clear what "ignores"
means
> in this context.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "   Trigger    The OF0 support may trigger the RPL core to inform
it that
>               a change occurred.  This indicates whether the change
>               requires a new DIO to be fired, trickle timers to be
>               reset, etc..."
> 
> - You probably don't want an ellipsis here.
> 
> 
> Phil
>