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

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. 

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

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

Attachment: smime.p7s