Re: [Roll] Closure text for ticket #86

[Richard Kelsey <[e-mail]>]

> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:51:25 -0500
> From: Mukul Goyal <[e-mail]>
>
> #86: G flag: do we need that text?
> 
> Problem
> ------------------------------
>  Disagreement on the meaning of 'G' bit and imposed setting to 0;
> 
> Proposed resolution
> ---------------------------
> Add the following text to the draft:
> 
> "The origin sets the G flag to indicate the relative importance of the
> route discovery it is initiating. The G flag is set to one if this
> particular route discovery is more important from application's
> perspective than some other route discovery. In other words, the
> origin sets the G flag to one if this particular route discovery helps
> meet the application defined goal \cite{rpl}. Thus, the G flag setting
> helps an intermediate router choose which route discoveries to
> participate in if it cannot participate in all route discoveries. An
> intermediate router SHOULD participate in route discoveries with G
> flag set to one (in preference to ones with G flag set to zero)."

If you want to repurpose the G flag in this way you need to be
clear that the usage in RFC 6550 no longer applies.  I think that
the best way to do this would be to say that clause 3 of 8.2.2.2
does not apply to P2P DAGs:

  8.2.2.2. DODAG Roots

   ...
   3.  A node whose DODAG parent set is empty MAY become the DODAG root
       of a floating DODAG.  ...

Not having floating DODAGs would mean that the original use of
the G flag is no longer necessary.

                                -Richard Kelsey