Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Thu, 30 June 2016 09:11 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C6312D945 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 02:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vbRpNdJke5NN for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 02:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net (lb2-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net [194.109.24.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 058DD12B036 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 02:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.212]) by smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net with ESMTP id CxBC1t0084aYjWA01xBCUc; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:11:12 +0200
Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-15-89.w109-210.abo.wanadoo.fr ([109.210.238.89]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:11:12 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:11:12 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <dd7a9d7b-9963-bd5e-3ff5-b271dffe040a@gmail.com>
References: <CAP+sJUdRQHJhuszRLmMLoObVVELTGKAboPZpjHRV1M1t3T1BpA@mail.gmail.com> <962ecd511f1b4629bcf329790509bb0c@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <17987.1467118035@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <7887a2c930bd4eb3b90da72e2bbe914b@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <ec28f1cd-5f5e-43d9-bfc6-706a8b3116f2@gmail.com> <CAH7SZV-yuc8Zx6NBi_vMHZMFqEwZuKb25hewE2w1CC48yNyZ6Q@mail.gmail.com> <d9eb6a59c4206fe735a69e2d6ba57724@xs4all.nl> <dd7a9d7b-9963-bd5e-3ff5-b271dffe040a@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cbd3ddb63cc7a373b76b90438bcf727a@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (5oV1bT7FUuPS+gJoTGhJZctX9pmq5SME)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/jAdn63uTKsdGjmTWULbLZweqK-0>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:11:15 -0000

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."
>>