Subject: [Roll] Comments about draft-ietf-roll-protocol-survey-03

From: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:40:01 -0500

earlier comments addressed, but I believe there are still a few more  
items that need to be changed.

DYMO's distance metric allows representation of link and node cost,  
along with other cost factors. Although "node" and "link" cost are not  
explicitly called out in the DYMO ID, the distance value associated  
with routing information can be modified before consideration for  
inclusion in the routing table as well as prior to sending routing  
information. The roll-protocol-survey document and summary table  
should be updated accordingly.

DYMO-16 does not require, but does by default encourage sending/ 
forwarding of RERR. Please modify Section 12 accordingly. I believe  
this change also effects the loss response rating for DYMO in the  
summary table.

I think all '-low' should be removed from the protocol-survey.

Finally, I did not see any change in Section 4.2, which I believe  
others also agreed was not clear.

Here was my original comment

"""
In Section 4.2, the motivation provided is the possibly large network
size (250-millions) and deep network (20 hops). Network size and
routing information size do not have a direct connection when
hierarchical addressing is used. Perhaps this motivation could be
removed and simply the last sentence kept. Given this change maybe the
suitability metric should become routing table size, instead of table
scalability.
"""

Ian Chakeres

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:23:18 -0800

On Jan 20, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Ian Chakeres wrote:

> I examined draft-ietf-roll-protocol-survey-03. I found most of my  
> along with other cost factors. Although "node" and "link" cost are  
> not explicitly called out in the DYMO ID, the distance value  
> associated with routing information can be modified before  
> consideration for inclusion in the routing table as well as prior to  
> sending routing information. The roll-protocol-survey document and  
> summary table should be updated accordingly.
>

I'm glad that the draft is having impact on protocol specifications,  
so that they consider the demands of LLNs. But we need to close on  
this document. Clearly it can't chase moving targets in drafts.  
Originally, the intention of the  "mature drafts" language had been to  
be able to include some important protocols which were not yet RFCs  
but were at a level of stability that meant they wouldn't be a moving  
target.

Phil

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:52:37 +0100

> comments inline
>> earlier comments addressed, but I believe there are still a few  
>> more items that need to be changed.
>>
>> consideration for inclusion in the routing table as well as prior  
>> to sending routing information. The roll-protocol-survey document  
>> and summary table should be updated accordingly.
>>
> Originally, the intention of the  "mature drafts" language had been  
> to be able to include some important protocols which were not yet  
> RFCs but were at a level of stability that meant they wouldn't be a  
> moving target.

Which of course does not mean that these protocols will not be good  
candidates (with potential extensions) for LLN once/if ROLL gets re- 
chartered.

JP.