Re: [Roll] Questions on the RPL applicability statement

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

That diff of -03->-04 applicability template:

4.3.1.  Trickle Parameters

+   This section is intended to document the specific value (or ranges)
+   appropriate for this kind of deployment.  This includes trickle
+   specific parameters such as those of RFC6550, section 8.3.1: Imin
+   (DIOInternvalMin), Imax (DIOIntrevalDoublings), and k
+   (DIORedundancyConstant).  While it is not necessary to hard code
+   these parameters into RPL nodes, as they are announced as part of the
+   DIO message, it is important for researchers who are trying to
+   validate the convergence properties of the resulting deployment to
+   understand what values have been selected.

+4.3.2.  Other Parameters

+   There are additional values which are present in the DODAG
+   Configuration option.  The purpose of this section is to: a) document
+   what values are configured, b) if a default value is used, if it is
+   appropriate for this deployment.

+   These values include: MaxRankIncrease, MinHopRankIncrease, the
+   Objective Code Point to use, Default Lifetime, Lifetime Units...

+   In addition, the kinds of metrics which will be used (RFC6551) needs
+   to be specified.  If Objective Function 0 (RFC6552) is used, then it
+   specifies a number of values, but also needs definitions of the
+   stretch_of_rank, and rank_factor.

+   If MRHOF (RFC6719) is used, then section 5 of this document requires
+   selection of: MAX_LINK_METRIC, MAX_PATH_COST,
+   PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD, PARENT_SET_SIZE, and ALLOW_FLOATING_ROOT.

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