Re: [Roll] Discussion/Comments For draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jonathan

so do you mean the MPL is for both shared and non shared mediums, and
using Trickel for the mulicast purpose

AB

On 1/28/13, Jonathan Hui (johui) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> While RFC 6206 is particularly concerned about communication over shared
> media, Trickle is not specific to communication over shared media.
>
> --
> Jonathan Hui
>
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear I-D Authors,
>>
>> I done a little review so far and need answers to continue, as the
>> ROLL chair asked for some discussion on our WG draft, which I will try
>> to do so far.
>>
>> I see that the draft's applicability statement does not include
>> *shared medium*, but the *trickel algorithm* works for shared medium,
>> which in RFC6206 states that in the abstract. So if this MPL uses
>> trickel do you think it still will work in a non-shared communication
>> medium LLN, Please advise?
>>
>> otherwise I recommend to add the words as in trickel: *lossy shared
>> medium*
>> As in the appplicability statement section 3
>>
>> AB> Recommend Amend to>
>> This protocol is an IPv6 multicast forwarding protocol for nodes in
>> shared medium within the low-power and lossy network domain. By
>> implementing a controlled dissemination using the Trickle algorithm,
>> this protocol is designed for networks that
>> communicate using low-power and lossy links with widely varying
>> topologies in both the space and time dimensions.
>>
>> AB> question on section 3> I am not sure I understand *the space and
>> time dimensions*, Do you mean that the topology or multicast-nodes
>> is/are changing in space, please give me an example use-case?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> AB
>>
>>>> On 1/22/13, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/report/8
>>>> contains the list of open tickets.  There are some threads
>>>> linked in each ticket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103
>>>>  trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS
>>>>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07424.html
>>>>
>>>>  This ticket has had no significant discussion.  Is there an issue
>>>>  here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/104
>>>>  security considerations.
>>>>  We need to have a discussion about what are the implications
>>>>  of this protocol.  See next message.
>>>>
>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/105
>>>> trickle-mcast: how to determine scope of MPL domain
>>>>  We have several options from Robert Craigie in the ticket system.
>>>>  Alternatives 3 and 4 were discussed, and I think that we preferred
>>>>  option 4 with the multicast option always present.
>>>>  Please post if you disagree.
>>>>
>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/106
>>>> trickle-mcast: always use 6in6 encapsulation for non-link-local
>>>> multicast
>>>>  no clear resolution, but ticket #105 suggests answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/108
>>>> trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field?
>>>>  suggested answer was YES.
>>>>
>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/107
>>>> trickle-mcast: should multiple parameter sets be supported
>>>>  my conclusion: There is has been little discussion about this
>>>>     issue. My inclination is to not include multiple sets at this
>>>>     time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/109
>>>> trickle-mcast: should all MPL packets be destined to all-MPL-forwarders
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>>>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>