Re: [Roll] [roll] Discussion around the design of draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension based on MRHOF

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hello Aris,

I read/heard your discussion (on list and in meeting) but did not know your
suggestion/opinion, which is very important for WG as well.

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:03 PM Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> We had a discussion today during the ROLL meeting at IETF 118 regarding
> draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-12.
>
> After addressing all of Alvaro's and IANA's latest comments, the issue
> of the Objective Function design came up.
>
> Currently, the Common Ancestor Objective Function (CAOF) is "based on"
> MRHOF. "Based on" in the sense that it is described in terms of a diff
> to MRHOF.
> The CAOF defines the concept of selecting a secondary "Alternative"
> Parent, in addition to the - primary - Preferred Parent, to be used to
> increase the reliability of the upstream transmissions.
> Since the CAOF defines a complete objective function, it must explain
> how the preferred parent selection works. This is the part that is based
> on/inherited from MRHOF.
>
> However, the selection of MRHOF as a base has come into question.
>
> The two reasons given were:
> 1. We can avoid basing CAOF on MRHOF, and thus make it more generic, by
> simply explaining how the CAOF can modify *any* objective function,
> instead of just MRHOF, to add the ability to select and use an
> alternative parent.
> 2. According to Pascal Thubert, MRHOF has limited adoption in the
> industry, and thus basing CAOF on MRHOF may limit its adoption.
>

IMO they good reasons but should not been taken as necessary,


> The counter arguments were:
> 1. MRHOF is already implemented in an open source operating system
> (Contiki). Proprietary implementations are already opaque and
> non-standardized.
> 2. The usefulness of rewriting/editing to implement this change is
> questionable.
>

If draft is implemented no need to rewrite/edit or changing for general
purposes. publishing running code should be more important than making
things more general. In future this WG could rewrite/publish the general
procedure and update the WG RFCs.


> Does anyone have any feedback or suggestions?
>
>
I firstly supported Pascal suggestion in the meeting  of the
rewrite/editing or of generic modifying any object function, but if it
takes more than one month then I suggest not, and overall would like to
know the author's opinion, because in the end there opinion/reasons can
help us decide.

Regards
AB