IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu> Wed, 13 April 2011 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
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 77C72E0710 for <roll@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 5Pga6Bj3Djza for <roll@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU (cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU [171.64.64.26]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DE0E06B6 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 213-153-45-187.stat.salzburg-online.at ([213.153.45.187] helo=[192.168.0.180]) by cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <pal@cs.stanford.edu>) id 1Q9z6S-0000H2-Fx; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:23:24 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <7E3F64B9-368C-4F80-9D6E-A2D8517C26C1@sensinode.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:23:20 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <765151CB-F024-4181-98C0-2765FA0C16BE@cs.stanford.edu>
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-Scan-Signature: 5e15904e367bf57319d290d73554c551
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 12:23:26 -0000

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. 

Zach,

I agree that currently the two seem tightly entwined, in that p2p needs the measurement mechanism. But it might be that measurement is useful independently of p2p, and so keeping their specifications separate will prevent false coupling. It might be that once we are further along it makes sense to merge them, but in my opinion keeping them separate for now will lead to simpler and cleaner designs.

Phil

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email