Re: [Roll] MRHOF draft-11 comments

[Philip Levis <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 25, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Mani, Mehdi wrote:

> In section 3.3, it seems that the rank value using the case 3 is always less than the one calculated in case 2; then it is useless to have it. (if my understanding is true!)  This is basically because the highest “rank increase” that would be possible is equal to MaxRankIncrese.

I think that #3 can be higher than #2 when a link cost is much higher than MaxRankIncrease. Here's a parent set:

Parent A advertises a Rank of 40, link cost is 10.
Parent B advertises a Rank of 50, link cost is 250

Let's suppose MaxRankIncrease is 5 and MinHopRankIncrease is 15. Following rule 2, the advertised rank must be 60. Following rule 3, the advertised rank must be 245. I realize this is a pretty extreme case (why is parent B in the parent set?!?!), but there are less extreme ones and these rules are for correctness, not performance.

Does this sound right to you?

Phil