IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Comments for AODV-RPL protocol

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sat, 10 February 2018 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@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 21C63127871; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:52:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P3UIZhTN31hc; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22c.google.com (mail-ot0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B89E124234; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:52:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f18so9941879otf.6; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:52:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gwi3l1anZAAgy53vuXXc39bOQl3S0WqwHe7VrrLGQUQ=; b=hcJ7crF366tn61cYQpwTYJnuzQKRth774XkxfPxwLc8akX9OHBcKkcHtwhBtAsmaRc X2fiDnM+MVnGfi9CLWdqAI0fVZ9VYQCoXBaGhJFx5q5eRb5fjg8rc7uxg3dlsSJ6v6WG Ybdw+vnDLtaAO4xKqIbPuOk/7/ihu5Og3HAVsR9peS5/re9FQhdrQNuDUSwQtE6Cu0LP DUummWWgUuT5G4pT9sqa46Tf/xPyAQfwnI+Dt6gbcYK/lV/oCn9fozm8uFuz1RBm+ElM WkVG3xEKoG/R+WEQkxhHb6kjDvGTb6alOHigklQg+pV0R79ZVrqdNkawu2jb+lWhXHRv YzbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gwi3l1anZAAgy53vuXXc39bOQl3S0WqwHe7VrrLGQUQ=; b=cdSH5ROFAzvfbKa3bLj4L0hCi01ktKWhQzFrli589+L7qqSujKbLA2BCzM+OmYXtIb zBnI629ozq6DMtOVMVk6gk00Oqv1KEx2nooM37QyL4ATQQjusxonZjn/YqYOlLg5CKhs bK8W0FmcvK47dSzenfbSJtUjN1LqcC2ZO0SFBofTzlzGClEWLERPjBELM55n0/16JD/e B7mHpe8Nyfc1X6m9wsmUMOCOxMvPhEFrXxKhIlppnCvRB1k7MFUKWFMKWqCia755FzI3 F4MDjDAPyGSUqlghHrGuJkFYBBUmELHzDZOabyGHU6hsEpCJiljWlx0621OtGC2XIPPf enzw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAmw0ZOq5bIsLqaf4JWJVthasHaFTAVZrkF2fHzPVjqoePaaq3x wi7FFx8qTmII7TvqEcRwGMOdzzXc9xBxY28Z624=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224vHrdqKnUH6KZDuRMIG0QOve2/kawc7vqrMcu225AXzWSJO2s6v4tVfm8hfYeYcfWbQ2DD4VP0qenrUG5SOm0=
X-Received: by 10.157.63.225 with SMTP id i30mr4291481ote.51.1518252763960; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:52:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.9.153 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:52:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8_57DKq3abztkDgE6siHFkNvQKm4Ya6pcADT7yrJxJa8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADnDZ8_57DKq3abztkDgE6siHFkNvQKm4Ya6pcADT7yrJxJa8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:52:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89-bEJa3qFZDJ08Oz_FJUQyxydh1+NQ6wtiUXyouS7geA@mail.gmail.com>
To: roll <roll@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl@ietf.org
Cc: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113e4fcaacd95c0564d7c449"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/xYcdlsIBaTgFz2BCZZpbbxFCe5I>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Comments for AODV-RPL protocol
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:52:47 -0000

after a month of no reply, this is a second reminder to editor and WG chair,

please discuss,

AB

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <
abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
> The abstract needs to delete any indication that this is a routing
> protocol. IMHO, this is a route discovery for the RPL protocol.
>
> The discovery of route is part of the routing protocol so we have a
> different routing which is AODV-RPL routing protocol. The draft needs to
> mention if this AODV-RPL can work with RPL or not in the same network.
>
> IMO, the draft needs to describe the neighbor discovery combined with
> AODV-RPL route discovery. Also needs to refer to sections 18.4.1 and 18.6
> in rfc6550. Or the draft shows the difference from RFC6650 discovery.
> Please refer to sections in RFC6550 RPL.
>
> AODV-RPL instance are another type of RPL-Instances, so why you write the
> AODV instance. Please note that this will conflict with MANET routing
> instances. Please delete AODV instance. This draft needs to have only RPL
> instances or this AODV-RPL instance defined as RPL instance.
>
> Delete the writing words 'AODV routing' from the draft, and delete AODV
> reference as the IPv4-RFC mentioned (can be confusing). The AODV is already
> well known.
>
> IMO the operation mode is not used correctly, we need to identify the
> protocol not by the MoP, we will use them all then, it should be reserved
> for network operations not for protocols.
>
> IMHO, the Message format of dio is not correct needs to have type then the
> length format as shown in the dio format specification rfc6550.
>
> IMO, this protocol Sequence number is not different than the sequence
> number of destination mentioned in RFC6550. You must include the DTSN in
> this draft. If you thinks I am wrong please mention why here and then it
> should be clear what is the different than RPL in the draft?
>
> Security section needs to include rfc6552/rfc6553
>
> I suggest to delete future work section.
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> AB
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email