Subject: [Roll] [roll] #162 (applicability-home-building): Use of basic RPL vs P2P RPL

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:07:55 -0000

#162: Use of basic RPL vs P2P RPL

 Yvonne-Anne Pignolet:
 In 2.2.7. the authors argue that P2P-RPL is required for P2P and P2MP
 traffic in home and building automation LLNs instead of basic RPL.
 I fully agree that P2P-RPL is used for P2P traffic, but for P2MP traffic
 it often makes sense to use basic RPL, also in home and building
 automation LLNs. I suggest to include both P2P-RPL and basic RPL in the
 recommended protocol portfolio for home and building automation for P2P
 and P2MP traffic.

 2014-11-04 11:46 GMT+02:00 peter van der Stok:
 I think we did in section 2.2.7 first phrase, where we mention that RPL is
 useful in the context of the SS paradigm where multiple servers send data
 to a central client which may be situated on a backbone.
 We reserve P2P-RPL specifically for P2P and P2MP traffic.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-
  [email-masked]      |  applicability-home-
     Type:  enhancement              |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  minor                    |     Status:  new
Component:  applicability-home-      |  Milestone:
  building                           |    Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/162>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: peter van der Stok <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:32:18 +0100

Hi Yvonne,

We propose to leave the text unchanged.
In section 2.2.7 it is written that RPL is recommended for SS traffic.

Peter

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:57:02 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-
  [email-masked]      |  applicability-home-
     Type:  enhancement              |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  minor                    |      Status:  closed
Component:  applicability-home-      |   Milestone:
  building                           |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/162#comment:1>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>