IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL WG document

JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com> Wed, 13 April 2011 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jpv@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66A7E06DB for <roll@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YdYY5PYPvtHy for <roll@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF700E06A1 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=1595; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1302684076; x=1303893676; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=zjDqsLY+AHjXDDXyOaaf588ZdjxSDUaApuVBNXnuyT4=; b=HA+zEijNDEBkSvztb7PA6iWLlCTLUPCLdAvbZPyvySgolvMBRZj0CqmO 0krikcHFB1cZdVSpOAkoBkeoEZF0GszBEiMjXT62iRLzZ/DlOtgr2KTns vOXDCxmrZGXqfCsqhatJ8k6bfr/yKxm0/ZyAJ4iio3YXnK8U7HYzbhsK9 Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAIthpU2rRDoG/2dsb2JhbACmB3eIep1InHWFbgSNbINvBw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,203,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="428821888"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2011 08:41:11 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3D8fBWU017358; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:41:11 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.114]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:41:11 -0700
Received: from [10.60.114.229] ([10.60.114.229]) by xfe-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:41:10 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7E3F64B9-368C-4F80-9D6E-A2D8517C26C1@sensinode.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:41:06 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EE227267-87B9-4635-8C22-A7251E847DB4@cisco.com>
References: <43AEA790-8199-4A86-A318-4963713CD991@cisco.com> <7E3F64B9-368C-4F80-9D6E-A2D8517C26C1@sensinode.com>
To: Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Apr 2011 08:41:10.0693 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A205550:01CBF9B6]
Cc: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL WG document
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: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:41:16 -0000

Hi Zach,

On Apr 13, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Zach Shelby wrote:

> JP,
> 
> Although I agree that route metric measurement is necessary for p2p, why in the world is this a separate document from the base p2p specification? Furthermore there seems to be plenty of inefficiency in creating a separate mechanism, and it should be explored how this could be integrated into the same message exchange for setting up the p2p DAG. 
> 
> Therefore I would be opposed to have a separate WG document for the measurement mechanism, instead I think this work should be better integrated into the base p2p specification. 
> 

This is clearly an option. I'll answer with my point of view, but I'd like the authors to first chime in.

> Authors, please kick me if I missed something here.
> 
> Zach
> 
> On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:56 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement has been discussed on the mailing list and is a normative
>> reference of the P2P document.
>> 
>> Could you tell us if you are in favor/opposed to adopt draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as 
>> a ROLL Working Group document ?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> JP.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> -- 
> Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
> http://zachshelby.org  - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
> http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet"
> Mobile: +358 40 7796297
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email