IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a ROLL WG document

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Wed, 13 April 2011 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC133E06D9 for <roll@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZ+qdXMdL9Au for <roll@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3D6E0682 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye19 with SMTP id 19so669214iye.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=domainkey-signature:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from :subject:date:to; bh=7V/THcpF11GNE6xUQtnsH7Qo4mdNq4Kb4hCnXQWrUdY=; b=emssd9s1ykToJfT4vfgrgtCqdQRnG6OYE4BEKUaPiSZXktUtmwXG7a/jLpsJI64aIj wdJbyy28rZsjGhTSsEbtxp8L+9pMc5KxrSeqJmZH4jUj2uKuSog+gzs+3Fr8snRLH8iO e0wM1/MWDIxuAg9rDhcfSUVhdvN8/zb3evHng=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; b=mkl6VGqyXzojFJYTexKA+m2gOl5Hwgc3ZHBq4YD72boWaTUE5UrMm0mjgqd4jwviX6 vDUCO0uX+QZ7FEjusmMcE8Dh9LYDVUWlI+j7bVkEM5Pzg3TfnT4Y3Jne6tsHhB/hvjTs 0sPlOD3RWt1Pf0HrGE6kmC/hDVw2zg7tku0Sw=
Received: by 10.43.58.15 with SMTP id wi15mr3309563icb.411.1302694657209; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [59.24.56.188] ([59.24.56.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t1sm388119ibm.21.2011.04.13.04.37.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
References: <43AEA790-8199-4A86-A318-4963713CD991@cisco.com> <7E3F64B9-368C-4F80-9D6E-A2D8517C26C1@sensinode.com> <EE227267-87B9-4635-8C22-A7251E847DB4@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EE227267-87B9-4635-8C22-A7251E847DB4@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8F191)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <4194F59C-B9C2-426A-8E80-FD2EE8F1C386@herberg.name>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8F191)
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:37:40 +0900
To: JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com>
Cc: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as a 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: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:37:39 -0000

Hi,

I also do not see the point in having an additional specification, rather than integrating the mechanism in the p2p draft. Maybe the authors could explain why this is required.

Ulrich

On Apr 13, 2011, at 17:41, JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Zach,
> 
> On Apr 13, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Zach Shelby wrote:
> 
>> JP,
>> 
>> Although I agree that route metric measurement is necessary for p2p, why in the world is this a separate document from the base p2p specification? Furthermore there seems to be plenty of inefficiency in creating a separate mechanism, and it should be explored how this could be integrated into the same message exchange for setting up the p2p DAG. 
>> 
>> Therefore I would be opposed to have a separate WG document for the measurement mechanism, instead I think this work should be better integrated into the base p2p specification. 
>> 
> 
> This is clearly an option. I'll answer with my point of view, but I'd like the authors to first chime in.
> 
>> Authors, please kick me if I missed something here.
>> 
>> Zach
>> 
>> On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:56 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement has been discussed on the mailing list and is a normative
>>> reference of the P2P document.
>>> 
>>> Could you tell us if you are in favor/opposed to adopt draft-goyal-roll-p2p-measurement-01 as 
>>> a ROLL Working Group document ?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> JP.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roll mailing list
>>> Roll@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> 
>> -- 
>> Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
>> http://zachshelby.org  - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
>> http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet"
>> Mobile: +358 40 7796297
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email