Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

[peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cenk,

thanks for your suggestions.
I cannot refrain from reacting, and see below.

Cenk Gündogan schreef op 2016-06-29 17:04:
> Hello Peter,
> 
> I believe Pascal proposed to keep it in a more generic form
> "improvements to the RPL routing protocol".
> 
> Otherwise, read on for my comments regarding the former wording:
> I propose we drop any form of uncertainty and change the "and/or" to 
> "and".

much better.

> Secondly, "packet size" sounds a little bit too generic, how about
> "control packet sizes",
> or "RPL related packet sizes"?

I was also thinking of the headers, and IP in IP headers; and whatever 
may come; so I prefer packet size (NOT to be confused with payload size)
It looks general and still concrete enough.

> Thirdly, would "reduce ... the amount of required routing states"
> be a better choice? It hints to a reduction of memory while still 
> providing an
> operational (converged) DODAG.
> The proposed form "reduce ... the amount of accumulated routing
> states" could also
> refer to drop states and decrease the quality of the routing protocol
> while doing so.

required it is

> 
> Cenk
> 

Other suggestions or improvements?

If not we send new text on monday/tuesday.

Peter

> On 06/29/2016 09:05 AM, peter van der Stok wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> If I understand correctly the discussion, the proposal is to replace
>> 
>> "Additional protocol to  reduce paths for RPL in non-storing mode."
>> 
>> by
>> 
>> "Additional protocol elements to reduce packet size and/or the amount 
>> of accumulated routing states."
>>