Re: [Roll] MRHOF ETX

Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu> Thu, 07 June 2012 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
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 A8D8A11E80FE for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id COOWJSudrJJD for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [129.7.240.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC1611E80FD for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [127.0.0.1]) by dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A75523CB05 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:45:34 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.uh.edu
Received: from dijkstra.cs.uh.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HHPxnNljt7XY for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:45:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from it.cs.uh.edu (www2.cs.uh.edu [129.7.240.6]) by dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFC923CB04 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:45:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by it.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEF72A280C4 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:43:04 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by eaaq13 with SMTP id q13so685854eaa.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.40.20 with SMTP id e20mr2476469eeb.119.1339112731996; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.101.168 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FD13A8D.2010703@exegin.com>
References: <4FD13A8D.2010703@exegin.com>
From: Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:45:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CAErDfUSgw4rxnRefuH=fYnSVVWZeJc4P-ZWvvoZ1uEx5TMUJ9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dario Tedeschi <dat@exegin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] MRHOF ETX
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 07 Jun 2012 23:45:38 -0000

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Dario Tedeschi <dat@exegin.com>; wrote:
> Hi Philip
>
> When MRHOF refers to ETX, is it the ETX value as defined in RFC6551 (i.e.
> ETX * 128) or some ETX value defined by implementation?
>
> Could this be made more clear in the spec, because we are currently having a
> discussion in ZigBee-IP as to what this value should be?

ETX * 128 as in 6551.

The suggested value for parent switch threshold with ETX is given in
6551 format in -10. But I just noticed that I forgot to convert it to
6551 format for max link and max path values. They should all be ETX *
128.

- om_p