Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #129: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Proactive and Reactive Forwarding should be mutually exclusive within the same MPL Domain?

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:44:07 -0000

#129: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Proactive and Reactive Forwarding should
be mutually exclusive within the same MPL Domain?

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 And, assuming Kerry's comment is correct that PROACTIVE_FORWARDING applies
 to an entire MPL Domain, can PROACTIVE_FORWARDING by changed dynamically
 during the lifetime of a MPL domain or is it a static parameter?

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/129#comment:1>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:23:09 -0400

roll issue tracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > applies to an entire MPL Domain, can PROACTIVE_FORWARDING by changed
    > dynamically during the lifetime of a MPL domain or is it a static
    > parameter?

Given that section 5 says:
   The mechanism for setting the Trickle Parameters is not
   specified within this document.

and 5.4 says:
   The mechanism
   for setting the MPL Forwarder Parameters is not specified within this
   document.

I claim that there is no way to dynamically change this parameter in a
standard way.    I don't think that any aspect part of Trickle or RPL deals
with what happens if the magic numbers change.

I agree with the observation that a mote/network that is in reactive forwarding
mode should not be prohibited from being proactive.

The opposite is not the case: a network in proactive mode might completely
lack the code path to do reactive forwarding.

I suggest that either:
  1) reactive forwarding be made the default (5.4 says the opposite)
  2) support for REACTIVE FORWARDING be a MUST
  (I don't see anything that says that that this isn't the case. Lack of
  a MAY NOT does not always mean it's a MUST)

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: peter van der Stok <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:27:30 +0200

I support 2)

One of the issues raised by Kerry was if reactive and proactive can be 
active on the same node at the same time.
I would say yes.
My suggestion: Proactive and reactive are NOT mutually exclusive.

Peter

Michael Richardson schreef op 2013-07-12 23:23:
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll