IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression as a new ROLL WG document

Ietf Roll <ietfroll@yahoo.com> Sat, 03 September 2011 06:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfroll@yahoo.com>
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 0B13321F8B71 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 23:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 r-nDWIk0pcH8 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 23:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm20.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm20.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 757E621F8B61 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 23:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.91.66] by nm20.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Sep 2011 06:38:21 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.27] by tm6.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Sep 2011 06:38:21 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1027.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Sep 2011 06:38:21 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 520415.31127.bm@omp1027.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 18509 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Sep 2011 06:38:21 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1315031901; bh=AOrS/gAOgq7rq+0Bnl45I17wZyzjmJwqeSge6KDPot8=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tU4qRKjE8rZNUL3Hi0v1wuypNqdiPkKi2Fn/UbVbv2o7D6UJNluS6u/3AY0bN6CS/8Hakov7mJqYYBobGczI97rG7Gf4ZU7OJZC+FBUwvlKtIhooYu3zZiQhjBuy101OI9LF4fwAQKbcqhJI+PxraWMjWi6hS5DYrJUMxZC9Z44=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RDTwWu/dS9ga0gcsRMo9f0nWFpBO5ZQ4ltP4N3dSHcFaubS5AORy20DZsn3VgznFHjWdxabXFAx0vR13z9zy15u+tp3hmkpI/LECc0jaaDadapOwQImezV/M9F7g+uReT8/a3F14f7rLZ8+kc+o0KCKHWOCisSLnGuQiZQAO1S0=;
X-YMail-OSG: HpjqXKsVM1ncKAmE3KQGPd7pWpGCOcPRuPMpXUTrL2tOEe9 GAJczWxzSLUCzQkO48Q6qeXRwPbXTaTBJGGr8z9eD0Wzt.553OCt_i15ybkZ g9kgyruAHzT2sA2nl1cgeG6Ox8cSjy2yMx6oqlqvisUKa7PBPqmOtzMU3FAR uPgtjlmmOgdoE_7N5c_g8jrJB_6Yr6_AXL8MmvcKpTevHOoBXg3gOEtOSJl2 z_Y0ewrxY5cDpz6k1DgsraEXmymjwt4kWBRu73gclyTFPGNCAq3eKozgQbHx 8jKvLKrTpOWaacVQjugZrBihwh35YJAE.77FS9ni_vRT4xSKH.C53zE21XaG 7QMXC3ezOwYFuhht_RiV6bvZ82DC896EUZu1kTC.A
Received: from [77.247.181.163] by web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 23:38:20 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.113.315625
References: <1483809161.144962.1314763722334.JavaMail.root@mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu> <4884.1314797912@marajade.sandelman.ca> <AFA379AA-7AB8-4106-BDEF-030AAEC984E6@thomasclausen.org> <8CA251EF-2842-453A-964A-E3F30713917A@cisco.com> <2507C27F-0589-488C-902F-52B55A0FCE49@thomasclausen.org> <76BFB7B0-5A9C-43D8-995F-44A39A41CE82@watteco.com>
Message-ID: <1315031900.16281.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 23:38:20 -0700
From: Ietf Roll <ietfroll@yahoo.com>
To: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>, Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
In-Reply-To: <76BFB7B0-5A9C-43D8-995F-44A39A41CE82@watteco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-625931554-1315031900=:16281"
Cc: roll WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression as a new ROLL WG document
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ietf Roll <ietfroll@yahoo.com>
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: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 06:36:47 -0000


Cedric wrote:

That's said, I don't see any problem for trying to design some improvements for RPL.
I think this rule is the same for every protocols.

[rav] Yes and RPL certainly needs improvements. :-)  And compressing out a bunch of unused bits would be a good improvement.

As already mentioned in this discussion, it's all about *optional* improvements.
Designing new mechanism like compression doesn't mean that you HAVE to implement them.
So I don't  see why nodes won't interoperate if they all rely on the same RPL RFC.

[rav] Yes you are correct that nodes can interoperate if they all adhere to the same RFC (or in RPLs case - lots of RFCs already - and more if you want to do P2P and more if you want to to do non-storing mode, but I digress).
         We are talking about a change to the core specification that will cause interoperability problems from the outset.  If I rely on the uncompressed spec RFC (oh wait, it isn't an RFC yet) I can't speak to you if you rely on this new compression
         scheme.  If we decide to go forward this this, then we have to have some way to negotiate between nodes to say if you are or are not using compression (oops another I-D). OR everyone has to implement both which goes against the notion
         that we are designing constrained nodes.

         If this compression is a good idea, then let's make it part of the core spec, get rid of the extra wasted bits and try to make RPL useful on constrained nodes.  This draft, if it is adopted by the WG, should deprecate the RPL core spec and fix it.

rav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email