IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Angelo P. Castellani" <angelo@castellani.net> Mon, 05 September 2011 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <angelo.castellani@gmail.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 CB33B21F8A67 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 06:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 b2-oKoBKnnwx for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 06:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446A121F8B24 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 06:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so4419009wyg.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 06:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VLkO79ORrTdrtH+9DJ98bCYa5QINlvzeDiDri0jmbOM=; b=jbWTNg4Ifo5whmei0dE9rWV76FIzuOauALVSprAuj0Fj+SxulVQaxVNcQFEuE89o6G OSxn5r1dmzKZ/JoAqCXZEarY5elBo6/J++e9zYgnITnoCpafshYT31lDSyTQ1S+rdt+7 9/g8K4Vv9naSko/rzT26PYOxdgaWHayMBUErU=
Received: by 10.216.166.20 with SMTP id f20mr11778wel.51.1315230373180; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 06:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: angelo.castellani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.11.211 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 06:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <465899107.187484.1315179349447.JavaMail.root@mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
References: <16050.1315103775@marajade.sandelman.ca> <465899107.187484.1315179349447.JavaMail.root@mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
From: "Angelo P. Castellani" <angelo@castellani.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:45:52 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: RNngpD1ql1Tqd6EAytt6osTWGNQ
Message-ID: <CAPxkH3iFZdu-781GuY8GXfZqnHUNHN87cTwSYj03zXPVQ+U=Cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
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: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:44:43 -0000

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 01:35, Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> wrote:
> Such deployments would probably have all devices implement this feature. Or such deployments would be OK with the fact that any devices that do not implement this feature would not be able to talk to the devices that do. Other deployments need not use this feature.

The same thing happens when there are 2 protocol competing for
providing a similar feature.

Usually leading to a period of time, before a de facto standard will
emerge, where either:

a) different implementation using different protocols don't interoperate
b) both protocols have to be implemented for interopeability

The point that some people is arguing is:

- do we really need two different RPL dialects to exist?
- if yes, do we want this even if this could lead to a similar
situation of when two completely different protocols exist offering a
similar feature?

Best,
Angelo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email