Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Tue, 28 June 2016 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 31D9D12D555 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 EPuB1LqJo_1Z for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D42A412D4FB for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16853; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467129225; x=1468338825; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=AYwC4tdF8ffrf6ohw60dETGPZrgnD6l4WcHWmtUjomQ=; b=gEaafnhakPGmMqPXEzfJYt/iOH+NQcslrUqzTgAJ3zlVDcdUVhdUfqON 7hPsZmkbmFoJ/xwRVJcI2J0HmSWIgSAhH7o3hgDZ550I3wJRq10pAliDm gB2p74Wg9yTUhynHmUsFk3U00bUoxgIU+Kkx4zL7sBJT1myjKmRB0Vqj7 A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AfAgBOnXJX/4YNJK1bgnBOVn0GriGHC?= =?us-ascii?q?oUBgXsXAQqCPoM4AoEwOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeETAEBAQMBAQEBKhwlEAcEAgEIEQQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEnByEGCxQJCAIEEwgTh3sDDwgOv0ENhAoBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEchiiETYEigSGBWQEGAQEBSAiFJQWOM4obNAGGd4U7ggCBcI07b4chh24BHja?= =?us-ascii?q?CBQMcgUxuh2wBDhcffwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,541,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="291149478"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Jun 2016 15:53:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5SFrNxC014603 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:53:23 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:53:22 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:53:22 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter
Thread-Index: AQHRy9nVupFNWUgruE+yIgm4tP2235/9b3kAgAFvOICAABF6AIAAC6OAgAADNICAAAggFIAACtNw
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:53:21 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:52:49 +0000
Message-ID: <231ea84926a546bfa4a520ef378464a0@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <CAP+sJUdRQHJhuszRLmMLoObVVELTGKAboPZpjHRV1M1t3T1BpA@mail.gmail.com> <962ecd511f1b4629bcf329790509bb0c@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <17987.1467118035@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <7887a2c930bd4eb3b90da72e2bbe914b@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <ec28f1cd-5f5e-43d9-bfc6-706a8b3116f2@gmail.com>, <CAH7SZV-yuc8Zx6NBi_vMHZMFqEwZuKb25hewE2w1CC48yNyZ6Q@mail.gmail.com> <4B5E9AF4-CC70-4ABA-A637-A0F8585EAEDF@landisgyr.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B5E9AF4-CC70-4ABA-A637-A0F8585EAEDF@landisgyr.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.20]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_231ea84926a546bfa4a520ef378464a0XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/yuCMCCaIsDirVzFxSFM93tLmvAg>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:53:49 -0000

So leave it at "improvements to the RPL routing protocol" ? It already has some multicast, so that much would be in as well.

Pascal

From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Turner, Randy
Sent: mardi 28 juin 2016 17:12
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

+1 just a generalization of my earlier suggestion

R.

On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Prof. Diego Dujovne <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl<mailto:diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>> wrote:
Pascal, Michael:
                         I agree with Cenk. I think we need some room for
other ideas. Is it too general to use that phrase?
Regards,
                                          Diego

2016-06-28 10:31 GMT-04:00 Cenk Gündogan <cnkgndgn@gmail.com<mailto:cnkgndgn@gmail.com>>:
Hello Pascal, Michael,

Isn't it too restrictive if we limit the text to the non-storing and storing modes only?
IMO other modes, like the "P2P Route Discovery" mode as defined inRFC6997
and future modes (if planned) could also benefit from those improvements.

How about:
Additional protocol elements to reduce bytes over the air and/or the amount of accumulated routing states.


On 06/28/2016 03:49 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote:
    > Additional protocol elements to reduce source route headers in
    > non-storing mode and/or memory consumption in storing mode such as
    > route projection and BIER.
It sounds too prescriptive, as if we have limited ourselves in the charter to those two methods.  I don't think that this is your intention.
Agreed, Michael. We can bar from " such as ..." on.

Cheers,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: mardi 28 juin 2016 14:47
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Cc: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl<mailto:stokcons@xs4all.nl>>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter


Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote:
     > Additional protocol elements to reduce source route headers in
     > non-storing mode and/or memory consumption in storing mode such as
     > route projection and BIER.

It sounds too prescriptive, as if we have limited ourselves in the charter to those
two methods.  I don't think that this is your intention.

If you wrote:

     > Additional protocol elements to reduce source route headers in
     > non-storing mode and/or memory consumption in storing mode.
     > These elements may leverage mechanisms such as route projection and
BIER.

would be clearer that these are not the only two admissible methods.
I'm not sure that we need to say what the methods are *at all*

     > There is a wide scope of application areas for LLNs, including
     > industrial monitoring, building automation (HVAC, lighting, access
     > control, fire), connected homes, health care, environmental monitoring,
     > urban sensor networks (e.g. Smart Grid), asset tracking.  The Working
     > Group focuses on routing solutions for a subset of these: connected
     > home, building and urban sensor networks for which routing requirements
     > have been specified. These application-specific routing requirement
     > documents were used for protocol design.

     > The Working Group focuses on IPv6 routing architectural framework for
     > these application scenarios. The Framework will take into consideration
     > various aspects including high reliability in the presence of time
     > varying loss characteristics and connectivity while permitting
     > low-power operation with very modest memory and CPU pressure in
     > networks potentially comprising a very large number (several thousands)
     > of nodes.

I'd like these two paragraphs removed as being ancient motherhood text.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr%2BIETF@sandelman.ca>>, Sandelman Software Works  -=
IPv6 IoT consulting =-

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

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



--
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Profesor Asociado
Escuela de Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería - Universidad Diego Portales - Chile
www.ingenieria.udp.cl<http://www.ingenieria.udp.cl>
(56 2) 676 8125
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll