Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL WG document

On Apr 13, 2011, at 10:37 , Zach Shelby wrote:

> JP,
> 
> Although I agree that route metric measurement is necessary for p2p, why in the world is this a separate document from the base p2p specification? Furthermore there seems to be plenty of inefficiency in creating a separate mechanism, and it should be explored how this could be integrated into the same message exchange for setting up the p2p DAG. 
> 
> Therefore I would be opposed to have a separate WG document for the measurement mechanism, instead I think this work should be better integrated into the base p2p specification. 
> 

+1 from me, I have been asking myself this question too...

Thomas


> Authors, please kick me if I missed something here.
> 
> Zach
> 
> On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:56 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement has been discussed on the mailing list and is a normative
>> reference of the P2P document.
>> 
>> Could you tell us if you are in favor/opposed to adopt draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as 
>> a ROLL Working Group document ?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> JP.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> -- 
> Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
> http://zachshelby.org  - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
> http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet"
> Mobile: +358 40 7796297
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll