Subject: Re: [Roll] Potential RPL Enhancements

From: Mukul Goyal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:32:22 -0600 (CST)

JP

"We reached a point where the protocol is getting stable with all must- 
have features (except security, our next top priority item)."

I am not sure if many people are convinced regarding the suitability of RPL for P2P routing.

Thanks
Mukul 

----- Original Message -----
From: "JP Vasseur" <[email-masked]>
To: "ROLL WG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 8:20:26 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: [Roll] Potential RPL Enhancements

Dear all,

As a follow up to my previous email with regards to the version 05 of  
RPL, I wanted to elaborate a little bit on the process that we will be  
following with regards to further RPL enhancements.

We reached a point where the protocol is getting stable with all must- 
have features (except security, our next top priority item). It is now  
time to get feed-back from implementers.

There will of course be proposals to enhance and improve the protocol  
and here is the proposed way to proceed:

1) If there is a request to modify RPL because an issue has been  
found, a ticket will be opened and the issue will be solved.
2) If there is "nice to have" enhancements, we'll open a ticket  
flagged as "enhancement", to be addressed at some point (e.g. DIS  
enhancement)
3) New features will be addressed in separate documents.

Plan for rev-06 and -07:
1) clarification and potential enhancements to DAO processing
2) potentially DAO packing if it is shown that such mechanism is needed
3) Security

Thanks.

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

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:42:58 +0100

Hi Mukul,

> I am not sure if many people are convinced regarding the suitability  

Thanks for the comment. Could you elaborate with data points?

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:34:54 +0100

> I am not sure if many people are convinced regarding the suitability of RPL for P2P routing.

I agree with the doubts.

I was struck to see the comment by JP too... - enhancements?  Do we have 
a basis?

It may have been a wrong interpretation though...

Alex