[Roll] Closure text for ticket #87

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Thu, 12 April 2012 02:44 UTC

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:44:11 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1034499059.1903619.1334198651843.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <BDF2740C082F6942820D95BAEB9E1A84016A80E6@XMB-AMS-108.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] Closure text for ticket #87
Precedence: list

#87: Can't we split the target from the RDO ?

Problem
------------------------------
The RDO is a garbage option will all sorts of data in it. The advocated reason for that is conciseness since separate options mean overhead.
OTOH, it makes more sense to have all the targets expresses as target options as opposed to having one target in the DRO and then all other targets listed after. Having the target separate would allow for a DIO with no RDO but only a target, which would be useful to poll a device on an existing DAG. Currently the draft MUST a RDO and MAY and target option. The suggestion is to allow for a target in DIO without a RDO.

Proposed resolution
-------------------------
Keep it at that since 1) there are implementations and 2) it's experimental . This resolution implies that the issue will be reopened should the work go for standard track

Discussion
-------------

[Pascal]" MAY carry one or more RPL Target Options to specify additional unicast/multicast addresses for the target."
Now here I would have a MUST carry at least one target. That is indeed what makes is a lookup DIO...

[Mukul]
As I stated in the previous message, we need to include the target in the P2P-RDO to save bytes for the common case (discover route to one unicast/multicast target). So, we cannot make using the target option a MUST.

[Pascal2] Certainly. I prefer the split, in which case the MUST IMHO goes to the target as opposed to the RDO. In a case where the RDO is not needed, the target only message is actually shorter...

[Mukul2] As I said before, I think a P2P mode DIO always needs to have one P2P-RDO. I guess, in this case, we agree to disagree!

[Pascal3] Certainly. And there's nothing blocking with that disagreement, mostly if the draft targets experimental.
I think it's OK to keep your response as the proposed resolution for the issue. Still I'd like advice from others so exposing the issue as LC will help. Let's see on which side the coin falls.

[Mukul3] OK. I will be happy to hear additional opinions.

[Pascal4] Fine, let's keep that as the proposed resolution

[Roll] [roll] #87: Can't we split the target from… roll issue tracker
Re: [Roll] [roll] #87: Can't we split the target … Mukul Goyal
Re: [Roll] [roll] #87: Can't we split the target … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
[Roll] Closure text for ticket #87 Mukul Goyal
Re: [Roll] [roll] #87: Can't we split the target … roll issue tracker