Subject: Re: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 09:51:50 +0200

Hello Thomas:

IMHO a useful document would describe a potential pitfall for an
inexperienced developer or deployer, and then provide guidance, procons,
etc.
I can figure how this document could become useful in that fashion but I
do not see that it is there yet.  

Are you willing to take it farther with the WG, IOW produce text that
the WG roughly agrees upon?

Cheers,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Thomas Heide Clausen
Sent: vendredi 11 mai 2012 08:25
To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur); Michael Richardson
Cc: roll WG
Subject: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences

Dear JP, Michael, all

Upon JPs invitation, draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences was presented and
discussed at the Paris meeting.

The authors consider the document complete and "done", and are looking
to take it forward in the IETF process for publication as "Informational
RFC" in the very near future. 

We would therefore like to ask the WG chairs, if the ROLL WG is willing
to accept and progress this document towards publication?

Best,

Thomas, Ulrich, Yuichi, Jiazi and Axel
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 11:50:40 +0200

Hello Pascal,

Thank you for your email, appreciate the time.

> the WG roughly agrees upon?

Feedback is - always - very welcomed enthusiastically, of course. I am not quite sure what you ask/suggest, but do let me know any and all suggestions.

More generally, I am not sure that the direction you propose ("guidance to an inexperienced developer or deployer") is the right direction for the document. I actually believe that many of the issues, which draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences describes, are well beyond what can be classified as "potential pitfalls for an inexperienced developer or deployer", but rather are artifacts and consequences of the RPL protocol design choices, documented. And I think that these need to be documented.

Best,

Thomas