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

Philip Levis <> Fri, 08 June 2012 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F81321F86B4 for <>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Om02d+6+eSmY for <>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU (cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1EB21F86B0 for <>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <>) id 1Sd7wB-0002UM-ME; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:45:47 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Philip Levis <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:42:51 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Pascal Thubert <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Scan-Signature: 3acef658708772c1d00935e7d4d752c5
Cc: roll <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:45:50 -0000

Response inline.

On Jun 8, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:

> With respect to 2), I'd love to hear from the folks implementing MRHOF whether they think this is a good idea. Are there cases where the flexibility is useful? ETX is stated as the least common denominator through a SHOULD. My worry right now is that we're pursuing a not-unreasonable-but-mostly-hypothetical concern. As I said before, asking the question is great, but we don't want to reverse years of agreed-upon-reasoning and tradeoff decisions without careful thought.
> [Pascal] Agreed with the mostly hypothetical. Is anyone using another metric than ETX? But " years of agreed-upon-reasoning and tradeoff decisions" might be slightly exaggerated...
> Cheers,
> Pascal

What I meant here is that the rest of the protocol has been designed assuming this is the case. There are other things we might have done were there a strong binding between the two. For example, if an OCP defines the metric container and there isn't flexibility, there would be little need for a general metric container object: an OF could define it. 

I'll repeat what I said before: we should ask this question, but should not answer it definitively now. Making a significant change right now based on concerns -- which haven't been voiced by any implementers -- seems like a dangerous road to tread. I mean, come on, let's evaluate the design and evolve it from practice, not from the sofa.