IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Fri, 08 June 2012 11:27 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=4996a14c8=mukul@uwm.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F81921F8786 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 04:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HVStjQBwa9Dn for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 04:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (ip2mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA09C21F86D0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 04:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEAG3h0U9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABFhVKyGwEBBAEjVhsODAINGQJZBogZBaZOiVqJBIEjjnGBEgOIQIxej3uCfg
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C781FD0C8; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 06:27:07 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wymV5EgECRuu; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 06:27:07 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.177]) by mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7037A1FD0C7; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 06:27:07 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 06:27:07 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1016954968.629428.1339154827389.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1E2F4795-3DE4-4231-8CCC-38953DA203F7@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [99.20.249.193]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.15_GA_2995 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.15_GA_2995)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>, Stiemerling Martin <mstiemerling@googlemail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, Haberman Brian <brian@innovationslab.net>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:27:27 -0000

>>> Is the receiving node supposed to infer that the selected metric for a RPL Instance using MRHOF is the one metric container included in the DIO (or, in the case of ETX, there is no metric container)?
>> 
>> In my opinion, yes.

>Where is that behavior explicitly described in the relevant specifications?

It is not. It should be.

Mukul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email