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

On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:11 AM 6/8/12, Michael Richardson wrote:

> 
>>>>>> "Philip" == Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
>    Philip> I agree that this is a good question to ask. I disagree that
>    Philip> now is an appropriate time to answer it definitively; we
>    Philip> currently have only one OCP. We made a concrete and
>    Philip> deliberate design decision. I'd argue we should stick with
>    Philip> it to at least see it play out a bit more. E.g., once MRHOF
>    Philip> is actually a proposed standard and we have significant
>    Philip> experience using it. It's so critical in systems design to
> 
> I think what you are saying is that splitting MRHOF into multiple OCPs
> in the future would not be so difficult a thing to do.

Yeah, but once the code is deployed, nobody is going to make changes.

> There is a coding simplicity in what we have now, and we should be
> conscious of the constraints of our devices.

I'll push back a little - inferring the metric from the received DIO is certainly no simpler than learning the metric directly from the OCP...

- Ralph

> -- 
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works 
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll