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> Fri, 02 September 2011 14:30 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 9889521F8B38 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 07:30:42 -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 IeaS13+DgtqM for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 07:30:42 -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 BFE4421F8B21 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so2659444wyg.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:32:17 -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=amrAn+jgQIeyDkVJ3Tijw6L+NDry1zyJa4hO3Xzh9MA=; b=SzXJKDmfz7u7y25lLbao781h2CcPLpOVY4OC83749Q92ljIK+Y9DQzqRPdyNWmMTEG 92ThAv9e40Uwbo5aXZFbXo5rwOum29/ULwapB2pL8SqdvD2WXZI5qjQYq7wUP1/1D49x V7+rICIlaogrz5P89+bXys8qxDdHmQsUNayqY=
Received: by 10.216.20.5 with SMTP id o5mr1096240weo.51.1314973937185; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: angelo.castellani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.11.211 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F34E7478-B58E-49E0-8F11-3CE6DBCC2BEB@watteco.com>
References: <1483809161.144962.1314763722334.JavaMail.root@mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu> <4884.1314797912@marajade.sandelman.ca> <AFA379AA-7AB8-4106-BDEF-030AAEC984E6@thomasclausen.org> <8CA251EF-2842-453A-964A-E3F30713917A@cisco.com> <2507C27F-0589-488C-902F-52B55A0FCE49@thomasclausen.org> <24100.1314827183@marajade.sandelman.ca> <CAPxkH3hoQnt=Ks6ccAqwR5KPaRSanPmhh3py4dTL2qU35Z7vQw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPxkH3gMNdKR_mC9jqvyNJQK3B1fEVFv8x9rGJpm+n7KJeJ+dg@mail.gmail.com> <F34E7478-B58E-49E0-8F11-3CE6DBCC2BEB@watteco.com>
From: "Angelo P. Castellani" <angelo@castellani.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:31:56 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: d1D5GxNYcJ7sdR68Why86pGmUPc
Message-ID: <CAPxkH3ghrwjcabbYXuaNzExKz3i0w+epQcTe3E-Mqv1g=z7YEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
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: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:30:42 -0000

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:22, C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com> wrote:
> Because RPL is a Route-Over routing protocol, it is applicable to many different L1/L2, including the well-known 802.14.5 and their last improvements/updates, PLC  and many others ...
>
> Thus, I think we should avoid to bind RPL to some specifics L1/L2, or we would need to update RPL for each new L1/L2 created that aim to use RPL.

Sure!

As clarified in the previous message, I am NOT telling to bind RPL to
a specific LL.

I believe that given a specific LL, message format to be used on it
should be a MUST and not an implementation decision.

The format to be used on a specific link layer should be identified
using some high-level characteristics of the link-layer itself (i.e.
MAX_FRAME_SIZE): in this way we will not bind to any specific LL.

The main advantage of this is that no confusion will exist about which
message format to use on any link-layer, and any implementation will
interoperate with each without requiring that nodes (at least some)
support both formats.

Best,
Angelo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email