IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Working Group Last Call:draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-02

"Emmanuel Baccelli" <emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com> Tue, 09 December 2008 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <roll-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: roll-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-roll-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45343A6887; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:02:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1331D3A6887 for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:02:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zu2-huyiGWoJ for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B246F3A63D3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id b39so862999ugd.15 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:02:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=vkq/RdeYdx6znrssozjqZsf3QuCpscx8jwRh27tLBQ8=; b=vp1DBuR6cqBXQ2aKTKPn0PdITEAR+tvty+aAGkreDt+b37nkaxcPtKUc5R8RHccn/Z /FwdVFtLXkVhYEepKAihDOWJWnqRlWV7SEvZhl3TZDQzUpulX40ksIWM5rXszC2wG/ma ONXPwsaUnABQOfpaCmsTiMfK+IxRr73sirDKE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=TzNwGH6wbl5ixb+DVF4GVt8w08ouAsm/bedhI72F6cjOM/ES19RL7OpWg6DAyLJ4eO Cj82cAwDblxZN4sOJ9bcFnzxO46PxDGuqkfMMPnUd0KKAWgpiWbX4bC33THPd5+iLcpa sLvcIpXxLO8uOsSjlOMzOUVrNsn7UhlOJ8veg=
Received: by 10.103.40.5 with SMTP id s5mr1621289muj.4.1228813343039; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:02:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.248.12 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <be8c8d780812090102y19e0183exf5ab52f95d867558@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:02:22 +0100
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com>
To: roll@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <E3A7879D-2DE9-49C4-9A27-15EF211E8ADA@thomasclausen.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7C1A2E64-C1B0-472E-B354-77F290BBC80D@cisco.com> <374005f30812050849refe8122i63629f469f8ba7c8@mail.gmail.com> <7471DA6B-7B09-42BB-8291-C30C83576295@cs.stanford.edu> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D01652699@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <E3A7879D-2DE9-49C4-9A27-15EF211E8ADA@thomasclausen.org>
Cc: charliep@computer.org, Thomas Heide Clausen <Thomas@thomasclausen.org>, arsalan@eecs.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Roll] Working Group Last Call:draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-02
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1067401645=="
Sender: roll-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: roll-bounces@ietf.org

Hi all,

I think this draft is far from being ready to become an RFC, and such for
several reasons, some of which are, unfortunately, structural.

1 - The draft is evaluating moving targets such as OLSRv2, Dymo, NHDP, which
are potential solutions that are not finalized yet. These protocols could
meet more requirements in the end (maybe all of them?). For this reason, the
"pass/fail" table of section 5 cannot honestly list anything else but a
series of "question marks" (or "pass"), for now, for these protocols. This
makes this table rather useless, and thus this whole draft rather useless,
presently.

2 - The ROLL charter mentions that " Existing IGPs, MANET, NEMO, DTN routing
protocols will be part of evaluation." I did not see anything mentioned
about DTN protocols, or Nemo in the draft, not even a justification why they
are not mentioned.

3 - The draft is not constructive in its current shape. It is on the other
hand extremely controversial with its judgement, and does not reflect a
consensus within the community, not even a rough one.

Emmanuel


On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org
> wrote:

>
> On Dec 8, 2008, at 18:58 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
>
>
>>  Your point about hierarchical addressing is interesting, and I think
>>> it relates to comments others have made on fisheye routing and other
>>> state suppression approaches.
>>>
>>
>> Not quite. Hierarchical allocation is indeed a state suppression
>> approach. However fisheye is a control message suppression approach.
>>
>>
> And, it should be added that such are, of course complementing each other.
>
> Thomas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email