[Roll] Comments on draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-05

"Hamidreza Kermajani" <hrkermajani@entel.upc.edu> Wed, 12 February 2014 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <hrkermajani@entel.upc.edu>
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 B70251A08C3; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:20:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 4HkiCI04FX4Y; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:20:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dash.upc.es (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913561A08C8; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:20:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by dash.upc.es (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s1C9K7tH015222; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:20:08 +0100
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83002CBD0E; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:20:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 147.83.113.90 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:20:07 +0100
Message-ID: <150cc096da592cd8829f83c75f0a173d.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:20:07 +0100
From: Hamidreza Kermajani <hrkermajani@entel.upc.edu>
To: lwip@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd
X-Greylist: ACL matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:20:08 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:24:40 -0800
Subject: [Roll] Comments on draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-05
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, 12 Feb 2014 09:20:14 -0000

Dear Omprakash, WG list,

We have reviewed draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-05, and we would
like to share our comments:

1.- Section 3 states "In systems that cannot cancel the packets that are
already in the queue, it is advisable to set the minimum interval to be
much larger than the minimum link layer packet time."

Could "much larger" be quantified?


2.- In section 5, the first sentence

"If a node receives more DIOs than the redundancy constant..."

should be changed a bit by a new sentence like:

"If a node receives a number of DIOs greater than or equal to the
redundancy constant..."


3.- In section 5, regarding the range proposed for the redundancy
constant, i.e. 3-5: can this range be applied for any network density?
For which network density has this range of redundancy constant values
been tested?


Thanks!

Hamidreza Kermajani and Carles Gomez
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya