Re: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Philip" == Philip Levis <[e-mail]> writes:
    Philip> We decided against 1) in the design phase due to
    Philip> conversations JP had with some RPL users. The argument was
    Philip> that there are situations where you might want to
    Philip> dynamically shift the operation of the network. E.g., you
    Philip> have an OF that optimizes for two metrics, primary and
    Philip> secondary. You have a RPL network designed for monitoring
    Philip> physical security and reporting potential intrusions. In the
    Philip> monitoring phase, energy is the primary metric, with latency
    Philip> second. In the reporting/alert phase, latency is the primary
    Philip> metric and energy is the secondary metric.  

I agree with the scenario.

How would an (already deployed) node know which metric it is supposed to
start optimizing for?  I believe that intermediate nodes need to make
the same optimization as the node which has the event ("intrusion")
which it wishes to report.

(Maybe I'm wrong, cause my the parent selection code in my
implementation currently says, "return 1;")



-- 
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/