Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression as a new ROLL WG document

[Ietf Roll <[e-mail]>]

JP Vasseur wrote:



*if* you think that this not elegant enough (which has to be demonstrated IMO), then you must be supportive
of the P2P IDs work that the WG has been working on ?
[rav] how about a demonstration that RPL actually works as purported.  Thomas has said that his group implemented it and it was difficult, complex and fraught with inconsistencies in specification.
         I heard that zigbee is having problems making it work and the only paper that I've seen on RPL says that for constrained nodes they recommend no more than 30 nodes in a network.  Hardly the scale necessary for some of the 
         use cases been suggested (like AMI).

         The P2P is a hack to try to fix the fact the RPL is basically a collection tree and as such downward routing is an distant after thought (certainly not elegant).

         Without lots of memory, node must use non-storing mode (oh and we are talking about constrained devices so lots of memory is then inconsistent) and then routing is up to the root and back down.  Not what anyone who
         understands routing would consider elegant P2P.

         In the rush to get RPL out of the working group we all were bamboozled by the chair into believing the draft was actually complete and the IESG further compounded this error.

         If it were possible to fix things, RPL should be an experimental draft until such time as there are working interoperable implementations that are shown to provide the services that were required in the various Use-case
         drafts - or even just one of them.

         And now we are rushing to generate and publish a marketing document (called an applicability statement) without having any experience with the protocol.

         Are we rushing and putting so much pressure and bending the systems so that this gets published before we find we've built a house of cards and it comes crashing down.

         This will be really counter productive to the industry and the Internet (certainly not Thomas's warnings).  When everyone looks at this mistake and says, why didn't the IETF do its job and exercise proper engineering, then the ROLL WG
          and the Chairs will be the ones that have hurt the industry and the Internet.

Rav