Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-04.txt

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 19:34:12 +0100

On Jan 24, 2009, at 3:29 PM, JP Vasseur wrote:

> Hi Ulrich,
>
> On Jan 22, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
>
>>

<SNIP>

>> - Another general remark: I am not sure that this would belong  
>> into this ID, but somewhere I would like to see an applicability  
>> statement that underlines the differences to MANET and 6lowpan  
>> requirements and protocols. For a reader that -- like me -- comes  
>> more from the MANET world, it would be good to emphasize why the  
>> protocols that work well in MANETs do not work in LLNs. MANETs are  
>> not per se limited to high power machines and stable links but may  
>> have the same constraints as LLNs.
>
> There is no such WG item. If someone is willing to write such an  
> informational document, why not but for the time being this is not  
> needed. On the other hand, we may end up writing applicability  
> statement to document the use of protocol X in condition Y. But  
> again this is premature, we first need to complete the protocol work.

Well, this document does go through the exercise of concluding that  
no existing protocols, in their current form, are applicable to the  
ROLL problem space. I'm not disputing that this may be the case,  
however in order to understand this I need to understand what the  
ROLL problem space *IS*, and how it's different from the MANET  
problem space?

I'm replying to a review of a -04, but IMO -05 does not address this  
issue either.

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