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

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 08 June 2012 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C537B21F87F8 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fwChah+crmKh for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6B721F87EF for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so1325383vbb.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=60nxQuXPd1QIicDZkkL/RW9KmAdHK4XEyr85llghUj4=; b=WBTW6nM21uIlM4Zdx6bdy67ATTf3B+uQgIVDlkqmLDnEHkD9uD0bozpfXf8LC7/L/o m7nbn+EQcdvXI0XplkaEsOELcAOXrg0HQyTXqFrRoIabTa3Hiskw4wRB4Uxz047HjISA kyMhuO3GCFuil2no+Aq4rN7dzbF41kw5+EGK+wAl/4rKSjkFcbH3cqWoNGzYP8UOrPAR IH0yuE830o9zERHqQt6uFJiMKXKQxuY0+ZaHJDRUwFat9fAhrqDKCKDXYRS8im8YVW4X SzFxGrg+gZd1djXXq2nuYxFPGfC1H4Eh9l1/EoM5Ze0QLH+iWPvlYmb3b4vzRSbOy0Zs 2gqw==
Received: by 10.220.220.83 with SMTP id hx19mr6765875vcb.53.1339173084120; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [161.44.65.173] ([161.44.65.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i19sm10445744vdt.18.2012.06.08.09.31.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5395.1339164690@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:31:19 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5ABEAC00-EE4E-4B10-9127-8D8727135051@gmail.com>
References: <831338825.521366.1338009982543.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu> <8EFE80AF-3E7C-494E-8237-C63E6ECDAE7E@gmail.com> <53E28E3B-4C73-4BD3-BCFE-2C669FC3FA1D@cs.stanford.edu> <CAC8E858-8215-4BC8-98C6-962109324BED@gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD806E78F8F@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <4FFC4E5C-03CA-43D3-9220-DABDD52102FB@cs.stanford.edu> <5395.1339164690@marajade.sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:31:25 -0000

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