Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #103: trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:30:45 -0000

#103: trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 This seems like a useful feature to add. Easy to specify and implement.

 Allowing PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS to be zero does require that the
 parameters configured in MPL forwarders can be different per node. Reason:
 setting PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS=0 for all MPL forwarders in an MPL
 domain is not useful as there are no forwarders anymore.
 In other words, if we accept this ticket there can't be a requirement that
 all MPL routers are configured with identical parameters.

 (This points out an unclarity in the current text: are parameters of
 section 6 necessarily the same for all MPL forwarders in a domain, or can
 they differ per MPL forwarder? Do some of the parameters need to be
 identical in an MPL domain, while other parameters are not?)

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-trickle-
  [email-masked]       |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  trickle-     |     Version:
  mcast                  |  Resolution:
 Severity:  In WG Last   |
  Call                   |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103#comment:1>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:16:19 -0500

>>>>> "roll" == roll issue tracker <[email-masked]> writes:
    roll> (This points out an unclarity in the current text: are
    roll> parameters of 
    roll> section 6 necessarily the same for all MPL forwarders in a
    roll> domain, or can 
    roll> they differ per MPL forwarder? Do some of the parameters need to be
    roll> identical in an MPL domain, while other parameters are not?)

one of the key thing that ITEF protocol documents need to do, is rather
than "prescribe" that all the parameters need to be identical, it needs
rather to explain what will happen when they are not, and explain how
the protocol recovers, fails safely, and does not melt down.

I can not answer your question, as I do not yet understand the
parameters well enough.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/