Re: [Roll] WG Last Call draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kerry,

Do you have actual test results to back up the claims below?   We (the
ZigBee IP team) tested these parameters among 7 solution providers and did
not see what you are reporting.

Interested in seeing your results.....

Don


On 3/29/13 8:08 AM, "Kerry Lynn" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Don Sturek <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Kerry,
>>
>> The problem that  draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 addresses really only
>> occurs in route-over mesh routing.  I don't believe Homenet has such
>> routing solutions in their charter.  It is possible to see how a group
>> like Manet might use the draft but the only concrete forwarding solution
>> proposed is over ROLL RPL instances (certainly, provision was left in
>>for
>> other multicast address usage and attendant forwarding rules but those
>> were out of scope for this draft).
>>
>I don't think this opinion reflects on the validity of my comments for
>even
>the restricted ROLL use and I'd be interested in feedback from the
>authors.
>
>In addition to the comments I made previously, I am concerned that the
>default for Imax (== Imin) prevents the Trickle timer interval I from ever
>doubling.  Combined with a high k, this leads to aggressive Trickle
>forwarding
>in dense parts of the mesh that may inhibit (by interfering with) unicast
>responses in transit to the original sender.  Is there a reason for not
>relaxing DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX to e.g.
>DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS?
>
>-K-
>
>> I would propose that we move forward with the draft, within ROLL, and
>>not
>> wait for input from other groups since the scope of the initial draft
>> (absent extensions that other groups could propose in the future) is
>> focused on ROLL RPL.
>>
>> Don
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Roll mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll