Re: [Roll] Closure text for ticket #86

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kelsey <[e-mail]> writes:
    >> "The origin sets the G flag to indicate the relative importance
    >> of the route discovery it is initiating. The G flag is set to one
    >> if this particular route discovery is more important from
    >> application's perspective than some other route discovery. In
    >> other words, the origin sets the G flag to one if this particular
    >> route discovery helps meet the application defined goal
    >> \cite{rpl}. Thus, the G flag setting helps an intermediate router
    >> choose which route discoveries to participate in if it cannot
    >> participate in all route discoveries. An intermediate router
    >> SHOULD participate in route discoveries with G flag set to one
    >> (in preference to ones with G flag set to zero)."

    Richard> If you want to repurpose the G flag in this way you need to
    Richard> be clear that the usage in RFC 6550 no longer applies.  I
    Richard> think that the best way to do this would be to say that
    Richard> clause 3 of 8.2.2.2 does not apply to P2P DAGs:

I would like to understand why you feel that in the P2P case, setting
G=1 is somehow repurposing the G flag.

    Richard> Not having floating DODAGs would mean that the original use
    Richard> of the G flag is no longer necessary.

There is no use in floating DODAGs... *for the P2P case*.
I think that floating DODAGs have many uses in the P2MP case, during
DODAG construction and repair.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [e-mail] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.