IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Emmanuel Baccelli" <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Tue, 09 December 2008 11:54 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 C3CD03A6B0D; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 03:54:17 -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 A12213A6B0D for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 03:54:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 9iR4+aH67mFK for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 03:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.245]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851273A6802 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 03:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b6so671194ana.4 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:54:08 -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:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=pwBfn9+FV2rjF5fb7mMVbGLe9V/WzmT1df3nHCPh+w8=; b=Y3VIzNdUwmhutLzTvU4d096o0nkYNt8tmKBwxRI8d193sqXYfkCOvFTJQXqXNF88e1 /uIYmU538dkkAaUl807fLCvJWmwtRBTCaI54ceffAVD+OaSTE6UGrfvp1vffjKditEX3 BtlQtt9kql5P7JzOUVpTSvManw0jB79LZrw/I=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ImKreZj3CDAbR0O4zck6hCrkYvq9wabbrbs3YRn71voEwUTwZI782UT9Y7uHp0DRDs BCROfOa/7coL7Nz2dotNDVtvJJqNI2/7BBnGuIlWifEWrmIQKdMYKtKwt9zKwdm2K1cW xShZHvYhq+965t7BfPLQCy+Har7+MXNNS9xiU=
Received: by 10.103.241.5 with SMTP id t5mr1072mur.127.1228823646751; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:54:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.248.12 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 03:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <be8c8d780812090354v4e60dfc0xc3454e8890837e94@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:54:05 +0100
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
To: roll@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <C0F7A80F-326F-4072-B29F-524B37013405@cisco.com>
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> <be8c8d780812090102y19e0183exf5ab52f95d867558@mail.gmail.com> <C0F7A80F-326F-4072-B29F-524B37013405@cisco.com>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 501136f3ddef07ce
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="===============0672350277=="
Sender: roll-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: roll-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM, JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> NO. *Let me clarify something really important.*
>
> The WG cannot afford to wait until all protocols are finalized to get a
> routing solution for LLN. The industry is waiting for a routing solution for
> such networks and time is absolutely critical. No we have to analyze the
> state of the art as of today.
>


This seems incoherent to me. On one hand you say "we need a solution right
now". And on the other hand, this document dismisses all existing
approaches, because "we want the dream protocol". To me this sounds like
we're heading towards another research phase, and you will thus not get a
solution before long.



> 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.
>
>
> Would you want to make a contribution ?
>


I am suggesting we consider existing potential candidates before we go out
there and maybe reinvent the wheel.




>
> 3 - The draft is not constructive in its current shape.
>
>
> I do not think that your comment is fair. The draft has been discussed in
> the WG for quite some time and extensive discussion took place during the
> interim WG and on the ML.
>


Yes there have been some discussions, but there is no consensus on the
approach taken by this document. And there is no rough consensus either.

Emmanuel

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email