Re: [Roll] Adopting turnon 8138

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi

Le 11 nov. 2019 à 07:55, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> a écrit :




On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:31 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
DODAG configuration as it’s name indicates is configuration. The goal is to tell dynamically how the protocol is operated as opposed to configuring all nodes separately.

The draft is not about configuring the DAG, it is for compression, why your proposal mixes them?

It is a configuration knob of a RPL device so it belongs to configuration. It configures the compression of RPL artifacts and belongs to RPL. There is no inconsistency.


RPL operates in control plane and data plane. It does proactive route setup and reactive invalidation. These are all trade offs that are chosen to optimize energy and bandwidth efficiency vs. some theoretical perfection.

yes, so we need to give RPL more options and alternatives and not use its few reserved,

The current proposal does not generate any additional transmission.

how can we be sure of this if we do not separate functions specially while RPL is in both data and control planes.

The draft uses an existing bit that was wasted so far.


Defining a new protocol to set one bit might appear more perfect but would require bandwidth and code footprint that we do not have.

I agree but this draft proposed is already a new protocol defined as standard and updating standards. Updates for protocols can make things very more complicated.

You are very free to propose an alternate solution with enough details so we can understand it, even push a draft, and then the WG will make the best of all it sees.

We are now trying to understand your proposal and your request to adopt and to find good solutions, why we are asking for another draft or solutions?


You say it’s wrong. Show us what’s right...

AB



Pascal

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adopting turnon 8138
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>


I don't think it is the right approach, why using the DODAG configuration for compression? this compression turn on/off is not for the DODAG construction but for packets. I think we should separate configurations of the RPL routing standards and of the packet compression standards. We may add another configuration option per DODAG or another way.

What do you think?

AB

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:34 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear all

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-03 is a simple draft that completes RFC 8138 with bits in the config option to enable turning it on in an brown field.
There’s no black magic and it would be good to progress it in the background rather than forget it... Could we consider adoption?

All the best

Pascal
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll