IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 08 June 2012 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 ECF8A21F8935 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.923
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 nIjo8uE-67pN for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9D621F8934 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4F778362 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:09:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id EE2189823C; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A0B98147 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: roll@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4FFC4E5C-03CA-43D3-9220-DABDD52102FB@cs.stanford.edu>
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>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:11:30 -0400
Message-ID: <5395.1339164690@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
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 14:11:34 -0000

>>>>> "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.

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

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email