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

Alvaro Retana <> Wed, 21 April 2021 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6386B3A1FC0; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x6vq1bLi0jyO; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65AF83A1FC2; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h8so8627024edb.2; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1JdCaKAL9Me/uRuIGYqIlAL5PX07n0RjnbPJOd5RNgc=; b=iX4ardW6MdQbkmn26MiWoq5/qSK1mdvHK1xlJ6GBW4zLzbNRUmcnYLAEcj38vUbQ4B dqSwK5GIHTQpTqsrOsC3A0EiR6KgrRTp033GZ//79fpnClbZ1cXC3A5VeAe3McyN4s6x ZldKKxEPIDnr1/Q8E1iLAwq07CUzYd2zt8S/9UKTJxN61Wwk877YvDvs2IHOtacImIqb K1rq3zED3fbBOm0ZyUIj6XFcpoGnYOjtjQFPyIHZY0j0/tQDL6yh/x0hoktPJxqMtfSr FmFPKAm3b6e77Nwa+8VdZ7eqkNRfUpNsFCeAoR87Jmz61nuJoQDbGQxsTFW4B0LC4EeW 2dVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1JdCaKAL9Me/uRuIGYqIlAL5PX07n0RjnbPJOd5RNgc=; b=Dq/nBpXn++g27dVAsKEXGlwLjnwzRtYpLgx9dtLceeEs2uyUslvQOOblju2H0iCTVA xj6vjnx/xtG44wl5mnroakIIHVRoasQ+AcA+Tsohb1tGAvrvk93uSuIIxrcpy797iqc6 tq+aoT1DFqIMC3cjsk0XEPWa5GNC7/kU9lS/IjBJ1ndZ075NgwCWQtxeJ1vPByaK/7lJ eSn87mbwd0imPFVLAGQ1ROfsb9FvERU8batL34IwF2GxPpPDiklTsdiIvSBYHuEBABrF NEhwLyFY2B/HrZQ6yTfb0sOq84OVJmpMCXknAwuHLKm9r0+FbbFS7YGe8KwBV/zOXowp /Ncg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530HwDKUlAC1q2NQADVC8akdHjT71ZJ2ZCf70319tI7TruHDYScm B5Npst50yHu2kcAQPHHMesqW1qZoDUAvSpcz+Kte2HsR0NU43g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJweetVx0LfQ+5K5pHocAKRFb9qQi618e6YPRSJvbFza6j4ZTPDYEW6x9o1ddQk2LWMk2/0xcwgv7yzSSiLLdEk=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c1c9:: with SMTP id d9mr37393953edp.155.1619001764762; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:42:43 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:42:43 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <>, =?UTF-8?B?w4lyaWMgVnluY2tl?= <>, The IESG <>
Cc:,,,, Ines Robles <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-roll?= =?utf-8?q?-aodv-rpl-10=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:42:53 -0000

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


Hi!  Thanks for the review!

Just replying to the DISCUSS.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Special thanks to Peter Van der Stock for the IoT directorate review:
> 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).