IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec

JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com> Sat, 09 June 2012 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <jpv@cisco.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 4C77421F89E6 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 01:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.179, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 EeSZhJ23YqBE for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 01:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9821521F89E2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 01:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=2349; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1339230101; x=1340439701; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=mle4EgDfd0uVsPudXFaBXY27+AOfwr7AhrNNBDIMj+0=; b=FcuF+Xxv821nLw2vyHVQbUlzJcvfYfVEqlEDSfzp/HMwb9x3fmXa83/2 MFSj4jAVMAELS0O7zQeEO5VHuBxXWS/FhAbCZI0xuKcAUxmRbe8claIzW q9gQOb85tnXRdstmxrpPf0vPWkWjFuoVf8W6OJguzvFr0URN/vivgBdUt 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EACoG00+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABFtFmBB4IZAQEEAQEBDwFbCxALBAEJOCcwBhMih2gBC5hxn1UEkDBgA5UehVOIQoFmgmI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,741,1330905600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="45717909"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jun 2012 08:21:41 +0000
Received: from xbh-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com (xbh-hkg-412.cisco.com [64.104.123.69]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q598LewN017951; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:21:41 GMT
Received: from xfe-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com ([64.104.123.71]) by xbh-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:21:39 +0800
Received: from [10.60.114.229] ([10.60.114.229]) by xfe-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:21:39 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_67BAA7F7-B4B9-44BF-8710-BA95FE0F06A2"
From: JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <058F9835-D819-49CB-B704-2BB9D1EB8902@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 10:21:37 +0200
Message-Id: <3240AE5F-61EA-4634-B1B5-ABDB4E0E9CB8@cisco.com>
References: <831338825.521366.1338009982543.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu> <8EFE80AF-3E7C-494E-8237-C63E6ECDAE7E@gmail.com> <53E28E3B-4C73-4BD3-BCFE-2C669FC3FA1D@cs.stanford.edu> <CAC8E858-8215-4BC8-98C6-962109324BED@gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD806E78F8F@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <4FFC4E5C-03CA-43D3-9220-DABDD52102FB@cs.stanford.edu> <5395.1339164690@marajade.sandelman.ca> <5ABEAC00-EE4E-4B10-9127-8D8727135051@gmail.com> <CC2E67E8-B983-4101-83C8-3AB996F72023@cs.stanford.edu> <058F9835-D819-49CB-B704-2BB9D1EB8902@gmail.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jun 2012 08:21:39.0695 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4E477F0:01CD4618]
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec
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: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:21:42 -0000

[snip]

>> 
>> 
> 
> We may not be talking about the same issue, as I don't quite understand your question about flexibility.  Can you say more about it?
> 
> Do we agree that the selected metric for a RPL Instance using MRHOF needs to be indicated to the receiving node for the node to make a policy decision about whether to join the RPL Instance?
> 

JP> Absolutely !

Thanks.

JP.

> - Ralph
> 
> 
>> Phil
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Phil
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email