Subject: [Roll] Comments for AODV-RPL protocol

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 22:04:13 +0200

Hi WG,

The abstract needs to delete any indication that this is a routing
protocol. IMHO, this is a route discovery for the RPL protocol.

The discovery of route is part of the routing protocol so we have a
different routing which is AODV-RPL routing protocol. The draft needs to
mention if this AODV-RPL can work with RPL or not in the same network.

IMO, the draft needs to describe the neighbor discovery combined with
AODV-RPL route discovery. Also needs to refer to sections 18.4.1 and 18.6
in rfc6550. Or the draft shows the difference from RFC6650 discovery.
Please refer to sections in RFC6550 RPL.

AODV-RPL instance are another type of RPL-Instances, so why you write the
AODV instance. Please note that this will conflict with MANET routing
instances. Please delete AODV instance. This draft needs to have only RPL
instances or this AODV-RPL instance defined as RPL instance.

Delete the writing words 'AODV routing' from the draft, and delete AODV
reference as the IPv4-RFC mentioned (can be confusing). The AODV is already
well known.

IMO the operation mode is not used correctly, we need to identify the
protocol not by the MoP, we will use them all then, it should be reserved
for network operations not for protocols.

IMHO, the Message format of dio is not correct needs to have type then the
length format as shown in the dio format specification rfc6550.

IMO, this protocol Sequence number is not different than the sequence
number of destination mentioned in RFC6550. You must include the DTSN in
this draft. If you thinks I am wrong please mention why here and then it
should be clear what is the different than RPL in the draft?

Security section needs to include rfc6552/rfc6553

I suggest to delete future work section.

Best Regards

AB