Re: [Roll] Suggestions on the naming of the projected routes Re: Comments on draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-09

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 07 January 2020 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 BBFDB120170 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 08:11:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 rj2A0rdVhG_7 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 08:11:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BAAC12012E for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 08:11:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFE73897A for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 11:11:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE41E60A for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 11:11:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565EBA12EB1BEC251617D46D83F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E01164FE2@DGGEMM506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <MN2PR11MB3565EBA12EB1BEC251617D46D83F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 11:11:47 -0500
Message-ID: <28794.1578413507@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/kTjwlMwECG8JvtdMvizDaLWiznE>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Suggestions on the naming of the projected routes Re: Comments on draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-09
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 16:11:52 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > Source-routed vs. hop-by-hop work for me. Can we do better?
    > Ideally we'd find a qualifier that differentiates from the main DAG
    > where those qualifiers also apply.

I think that the terms are fine for the document in question.

I think that we are overall (as a WG), we going towards various kinds of
hybrid forms and the words storing/non-storing need to go away from our
lexicon completely. (p2pRPL comes to mind)

We may want to distinguish between nodes in a network that have complete or
incomplete knowledge of their subtrees.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-