Re: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences

Jiazi Yi <> Sat, 12 May 2012 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21A121F8634 for <>; Sat, 12 May 2012 04:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oozxnyl2AGDW for <>; Sat, 12 May 2012 04:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F245221F862B for <>; Sat, 12 May 2012 04:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:55734) by with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <>) id 1STAcB-003Vuw-De for; Sat, 12 May 2012 07:35:59 -0400
Received: from ([]:50124 helo=jy-mac-pro.home) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <>) id 1STATO-002nmj-6A for; Sat, 12 May 2012 07:26:54 -0400
From: Jiazi Yi <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B4A791C2-06D5-4D23-9E14-CC56E23355B0"
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 13:26:51 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
To: roll WG <>
References: <> <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
Subject: Re: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 11:26:56 -0000


As Thomas presented in Paris, this document is based on our experiences of RPL based on testbeds, simulations, etc. Of course, we are aware of the fact that we are far from smart, so we just followed the specification of RPL. I'm sorry for making those mistakes that are "basic and naive" for you, but we had tried our best. 

For the authors, we think this document is relatively complete on the aspect of "experience", rather than guidance -- of course, feedback and more experience are always welcome.  We would appreciate if there are smart ones who can make companion document educating us how to avoid those kind of "inexperienced" mistakes.


Jiazi Yi
Hipercom@LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
Route de Saclay 91128 Palaiseau Cedex France

On May 12, 2012, at 6:10 AM, Philip Levis wrote:

> On May 10, 2012, at 11:25 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
>> Dear JP, Michael, all
>> Upon JPs invitation, draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences was presented and discussed at the Paris meeting.
>> The authors consider the document complete and "done", and are looking to take it forward in the IETF 
>> process for publication as "Informational RFC" in the very near future. 
>> We would therefore like to ask the WG chairs, if the ROLL WG is willing to accept and progress this 
>> document towards publication?
>> Best,
>> Thomas, Ulrich, Yuichi, Jiazi and Axel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
> As I alluded to in Paris, I don't really think this is currently a valid informational document; the document it *should* be is guidelines on how to implement RPL, not a description of a series of basic and naive mistakes. Unless we want a companion document, which for each of the issues raised says how to solve it.  We wouldn't write an RFC on someone's experience with congestion collapse after implementing a transport protocol without congestion control. Just my 2c.
> Phil
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list