Re: [Roll] Adopting turnon 8138

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:31 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
wrote:

> DODAG configuration as it’s name indicates is configuration. The goal is
> to tell dynamically how the protocol is operated as opposed to configuring
> all nodes separately.
>

The draft is not about configuring the DAG, it is for compression, why your
proposal mixes them?

>
> RPL operates in control plane and data plane. It does proactive route
> setup and reactive invalidation. These are all trade offs that are chosen
> to optimize energy and bandwidth efficiency vs. some theoretical perfection.
>

yes, so we need to give RPL more options and alternatives and not use its
few reserved,

>
> The current proposal does not generate any additional transmission.
>

how can we be sure of this if we do not separate functions specially while
RPL is in both data and control planes.

Defining a new protocol to set one bit might appear more perfect but would
> require bandwidth and code footprint that we do not have.
>

I agree but this draft proposed is already a new protocol defined as
standard and updating standards. Updates for protocols can make things very
more complicated.

>
> You are very free to propose an alternate solution with enough details so
> we can understand it, even push a draft, and then the WG will make the best
> of all it sees.
>

We are now trying to understand your proposal and your request to adopt and
to find good solutions, why we are asking for another draft or solutions?

AB

>
> Pascal
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>
> From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Adopting turnon 8138
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
>
>
> I don't think it is the right approach, why using the DODAG configuration
> for compression? this compression turn on/off is not for the DODAG
> construction but for packets. I think we should separate configurations of
> the RPL routing standards and of the packet compression standards. We may
> add another configuration option per DODAG or another way.
>
> What do you think?
>
> AB
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:34 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> *   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-03
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-03> is a
>> simple draft that completes RFC 8138 with bits in the config option to
>> enable turning it on in an brown field. There’s no black magic and it would
>> be good to progress it in the background rather than forget it.. Could we
>> consider adoption?   All the best   Pascal *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org <Roll@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>