Re: [Roll] Discussion/Comments For draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03

["Jonathan Hui (johui)" <[e-mail]>]

While RFC 6206 is particularly concerned about communication over shared media, Trickle is not specific to communication over shared media.

--
Jonathan Hui

On Jan 25, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear I-D Authors,
> 
> I done a little review so far and need answers to continue, as the
> ROLL chair asked for some discussion on our WG draft, which I will try
> to do so far.
> 
> I see that the draft's applicability statement does not include
> *shared medium*, but the *trickel algorithm* works for shared medium,
> which in RFC6206 states that in the abstract. So if this MPL uses
> trickel do you think it still will work in a non-shared communication
> medium LLN, Please advise?
> 
> otherwise I recommend to add the words as in trickel: *lossy shared medium*
> As in the appplicability statement section 3
> 
> AB> Recommend Amend to>
> This protocol is an IPv6 multicast forwarding protocol for nodes in
> shared medium within the low-power and lossy network domain. By
> implementing a controlled dissemination using the Trickle algorithm,
> this protocol is designed for networks that
> communicate using low-power and lossy links with widely varying
> topologies in both the space and time dimensions.
> 
> AB> question on section 3> I am not sure I understand *the space and
> time dimensions*, Do you mean that the topology or multicast-nodes
> is/are changing in space, please give me an example use-case?
> 
> Regards
> 
> AB
> 
>>> On 1/22/13, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/report/8
>>> contains the list of open tickets.  There are some threads
>>> linked in each ticket.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103
>>>  trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS
>>>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07424.html
>>> 
>>>  This ticket has had no significant discussion.  Is there an issue
>>>  here?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/104
>>>  security considerations.
>>>  We need to have a discussion about what are the implications
>>>  of this protocol.  See next message.
>>> 
>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/105
>>> trickle-mcast: how to determine scope of MPL domain
>>>  We have several options from Robert Craigie in the ticket system.
>>>  Alternatives 3 and 4 were discussed, and I think that we preferred
>>>  option 4 with the multicast option always present.
>>>  Please post if you disagree.
>>> 
>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/106
>>> trickle-mcast: always use 6in6 encapsulation for non-link-local multicast
>>>  no clear resolution, but ticket #105 suggests answer.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/108
>>> trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field?
>>>  suggested answer was YES.
>>> 
>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/107
>>> trickle-mcast: should multiple parameter sets be supported
>>>  my conclusion: There is has been little discussion about this
>>>     issue. My inclination is to not include multiple sets at this
>>>     time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/109
>>> trickle-mcast: should all MPL packets be destined to all-MPL-forwarders
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>>> 
>>> 
>>