IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Comments for AODV-RPL protocol

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Sat, 10 February 2018 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.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 DF2A5127601; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:03:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.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 8dz3rcZ3fwpI; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x235.google.com (mail-it0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235]) (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 0F17F124234; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x235.google.com with SMTP id e1so1235604ita.0; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:03:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DIq+TR1Nxs8t+BaJ89L9wsIWFPvT1GGC6TByMLL67y0=; b=JvuRG01MvlVofX0MtQxYPbzx75xbYyUK+vYd016scTT6PPrjmiKDCK2sK7zhJeStgD hMlRqGFHcEn4MHlKjdtmJsjEJqbQbHfEHJD3Z1maoEFDXcArXnIRgR1lbW29NiJVbpou 0s3rMvstn9IcuRhouAgf2uvyOvf952wgbcUwPQo1XA7VOor1i7LPIJ9MCeMcZAK9wY8T yNhVoEBLyoCCSLI/r2NavnNjF33+zwrqAotaZERC319IhXIAo9sivjFezbtBMU/p9+bQ whXVjGT3teNe5ckKjiAp6YyKBbyzwANJ9brHBnQdWwMbQ2YvDA38Z8lcP4+iN4InjwyZ ycFw==
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=DIq+TR1Nxs8t+BaJ89L9wsIWFPvT1GGC6TByMLL67y0=; b=AZeTqZDYlVDi5vyRIndhmrTHoihDmMfAnOpKSFawmuuHeLV2BHp8W7j40cqH+g2GML qGeALHmOOr1zipOlAmsT3tJWAUbar/aTpIcXwFdNBfUa+28TswdrWXk1lLT4rJmAE+ih QXSJ+5wTqegUhXqvWGgZTk7a4bS3VbW+0IfP4NY/BULCMn8KBRrLIJ9/vdEmWQxp9rTy sYHrPhOvYxXeEj3G4Nd1d1iMnSdhQ9izAY67QBmpUIAXCEauDaVN3yMvVg+I9xBPQcbp xNEppmKlA2onaew7U6MwzDO0Fcx7AChU3cCZdJniIqylTvgJlJ7F9PD2+hdIW3sYpG1A Lmfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCDNv1M1XbMTfuNQ/lfCB/S/ZkPfPOr0CtzoQiFPGcge7eC4NH5 Y6sq/6G2ddWaEhBCGKnSYLamAkzjEAc7QCMOToa/7g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x22472FPi98oS8K0AwJsfk5LoiTIeCfVE6Fe0zrr9ocQbTEv6hGcGAxj60tFLgbpaeG3myU5B1K9K+7QnZQ9P51s=
X-Received: by 10.36.9.73 with SMTP id 70mr6283802itm.133.1518253391944; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:03:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.33.84 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:03:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ89-bEJa3qFZDJ08Oz_FJUQyxydh1+NQ6wtiUXyouS7geA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADnDZ8_57DKq3abztkDgE6siHFkNvQKm4Ya6pcADT7yrJxJa8g@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ89-bEJa3qFZDJ08Oz_FJUQyxydh1+NQ6wtiUXyouS7geA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:03:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUcv59oQRx+TS+CHxH-=OLz1SEQA4okntm0o-EBvQjOGyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl@ietf.org, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11373de21b39ee0564d7ea54"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/yV9B-_JSXX_ixv8zkcIM_k3p16E>
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 09:03:17 -0000

Hi AB,

Apologizes for late reply.

Ticket 184 was created to track those issues:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/roll/ticket/184#ticket

Please authors, address these comments.

Thanks,

Ines and Peter

2018-02-10 10:52 GMT+02:00 Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email