IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL WG document

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Wed, 13 April 2011 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=077c36615=mukul@uwm.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5AF9E075B for <roll@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.351
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xc3Et4mZr7gY for <roll@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip1mta.uwm.edu (ip1mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.18]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B60E0720 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([129.89.7.101]) by ip1mta.uwm.edu with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2011 07:37:49 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDCE2B3F2D; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:34:48 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KlHgsRvonxVZ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:34:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.165]) by mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3EA2B3F5E; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:34:48 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:37:49 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <797683570.24667.1302698268981.JavaMail.root@mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <765151CB-F024-4181-98C0-2765FA0C16BE@cs.stanford.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.91]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.9_GA_2686 (ZimbraWebClient - SAF3 (Win)/6.0.9_GA_2686)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL WG document
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: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:37:51 -0000

Phil

>I agree that currently the two seem tightly entwined, in that p2p needs the measurement mechanism. But it might be that measurement is useful independently of p2p, and so keeping their specifications separate will prevent false coupling. It might be that once we are further along it makes sense to merge them, but in my opinion keeping them separate for now will lead to simpler and cleaner designs.

The measurement mechanism was originally in the P2P draft itself. It was suggested to us that this mechanism should be its own draft precisely for the reasons you have described above. However, it could be that Zach is not referring to simply putting the two mechanisms together in the same draft.

Thanks
Mukul


----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Levis" <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
To: "Zach Shelby" <zach@sensinode.com>
Cc: "ROLL WG" <roll@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:23:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL	WG document


On Apr 13, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Zach Shelby wrote:

> JP,
> 
> Although I agree that route metric measurement is necessary for p2p, why in the world is this a separate document from the base p2p specification? Furthermore there seems to be plenty of inefficiency in creating a separate mechanism, and it should be explored how this could be integrated into the same message exchange for setting up the p2p DAG. 
> 
> Therefore I would be opposed to have a separate WG document for the measurement mechanism, instead I think this work should be better integrated into the base p2p specification. 

Zach,

I agree that currently the two seem tightly entwined, in that p2p needs the measurement mechanism. But it might be that measurement is useful independently of p2p, and so keeping their specifications separate will prevent false coupling. It might be that once we are further along it makes sense to merge them, but in my opinion keeping them separate for now will lead to simpler and cleaner designs.

Phil

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email