Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text?

Ticket closed.
Richard can you jut explicitly mention that you are happy with the resolution ?
Thanks.

jP.

On Apr 13, 2012, at 11:01 AM, roll issue tracker wrote:

> #86: G flag: do we need that text?
> 
> Changes (by jpv@…):
> 
> * status:  reopened => closed
> * resolution:   => fixed
> 
> 
> Comment:
> 
> Hi Michael:
> 
> I tend to agree that we are somewhat repurposing G... or extending it if
> that's a better word.
> The clear part of G's meaning is related to floating DAGs which is a
> concept that comes with global instances.
> Local instances were defined and reserved in RFC 6550 for use in P2P.
> RFC 6550 did not push as far as locking meaning for the G bit.
> It actually makes sense that the draft that really defines a use of
> local instances also defines what G does in that world.
> And here we thought is that instead of comparing DODAGs within a DAG
> associated to a global instance, G would now be used to compare DODAGs
> that are each a DAG associated to a local instance.
> The semantic shift is that now, G eventually compares the applicative
> value of different apps for a user as opposed to the routing value of
> various DODAGs for an application. We went up a level.
> That's actually not a bad idea since P2P is getting us deeper in the
> world of autonomic networks and thus into higher level abstractions.
> I do not see that there is any opposition in doing it. The wish here is
> that the text must indicate more clearly that we are doing this shift.
> I think that Mukul will provide the additional informative sentence that
> we'd like to see.
> In any case, I see no point in keeping that ticket open. Too much ML
> bandwidth was used on that discussion. Unless Richard speaks up again
> which I doubt, I think we really want the ticket and discussion closed.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Michael Richardson
> Sent: jeudi 12 avril 2012 19:40
> To: roll@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Closure text for ticket #86
> 
> 
> "Richard" == Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com> writes:
> "The origin sets the G flag to indicate the relative importance
> of the route discovery it is initiating. The G flag is set to one
> if this particular route discovery is more important from
> application's perspective than some other route discovery. In
> other words, the origin sets the G flag to one if this particular
> route discovery helps meet the application defined goal
> \cite{rpl}. Thus, the G flag setting helps an intermediate router
> choose which route discoveries to participate in if it cannot
> participate in all route discoveries. An intermediate router
> SHOULD participate in route discoveries with G flag set to one
> (in preference to ones with G flag set to zero)."
> 
>    Richard> If you want to repurpose the G flag in this way you need to
>    Richard> be clear that the usage in RFC 6550 no longer applies.  I
>    Richard> think that the best way to do this would be to say that
>    Richard> clause 3 of 8.2.2.2 does not apply to P2P DAGs:
> 
> I would like to understand why you feel that in the P2P case, setting
> G=1 is somehow repurposing the G flag.
> 
>    Richard> Not having floating DODAGs would mean that the original use
>    Richard> of the G flag is no longer necessary.
> 
> There is no use in floating DODAGs... *for the P2P case*.
> I think that floating DODAGs have many uses in the P2MP case, during
> DODAG construction and repair.
> 
> --
> ]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |
> firewalls  [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net
> architect[
> ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device
> driver[
>   Kyoto Plus: watch the video
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
>                        then sign the petition.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------+----------------------
> Reporter:  jpv@…                  |       Owner:  mukul@…
>     Type:  defect                 |      Status:  closed
> Priority:  major                  |   Milestone:
> Component:  p2p-rpl                |     Version:
> Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |  Resolution:  fixed
> Keywords:                         |
> -----------------------------------+----------------------
> 
> Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/86#comment:4>
> roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>
> 