Re: [Roll] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On April 21, 2021 at 5:44:43 AM, Éric Vyncke wrote:


Éric:

Hi!  Thanks for the review!

Just replying to the DISCUSS.


...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
...
> Special thanks to Peter Van der Stock for the IoT directorate review:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-iotdir-telechat-van-der-stok-2021-04-15/
>
> To be honest, the lack of reply to Peter's review by the authors or by the WG
> a little bit suprising (thank you to the RTG AD though).

I'll make sure the authors reply to Peter before we move forward.

[BTW, Peter was roll chair when this document went through WGLC. :-)
We're all very grateful for his work.]


...
> == DISCUSS ==
>
> A very trivial to fix but I do want to have a justification of using
> "point-to-point" (typically used over the two sides of a single link) vs.
> "peer-to-peer" (typically used over multiple links). Is it intentional by the
> ROLL WG ? Did I fail to understand the purpose of this document ? (quite
> possible of course!). I am afraid that many people will interpret the
> "point-to-point" like me.

That is the terminology that is used to describe this type of traffic
flow in RPL -- see rfc6550/§4 (Traffic Flows Supported by RPL).


Alvaro.