Re: [Roll] Closing on Ticket #10

[Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>>>>> "JP" == JP Vasseur <jvasseur at cisco.com> writes:
    JP> Now the question is whether or not RPL mandates the support of
    JP> OF0.

    JP> Again two options:

    JP> 1) We remove OF0 from the core spec. And nodes are free to
    JP> implement the OF that they want

    JP> 2) We do mandate for each node to support OF0

...

    JP> If the support of OF0 in no longer mandatory, nodes operating in
    JP> an environment requiring a specific OF just have to implement
    JP> that OF.  On the other hand, when mixing nodes that do not
    JP> support the same OF, they do not interoperate.

What is the real code complexity of an OF?
My impression is that it is not a lot of code. 

My opinion is that without a mandatory to implement set of options in
the core specification, it is not a standard.  There is ample experience
within the IETF (and even more outside the IETF) with what happens when
you do not have a mandatory to implement subset to guarantee
interoperability.  

There will be many implementations which are created and sold as
libraries and as part of commodity operating systems which will
implement only the minimal subset. If OF0 is not required, it won't be
there.  

If there is a subset of RPL use cases that do not need OF0, and for whom
having that code present is make or break, then that group should write
a standards track document which says what they need to implement. Those
products will not declare themselves as "RFC1234"(RPL) compliant, but
instead as "RFC2345"(pool-shed-light-switch-only).

- -- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition. 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQEVAwUBSvzAIYCLcPvd0N1lAQJ6XAf/bwBVAnKJYc+U4IRAdIfqve9H8NAYwM//
248uvPfPb+IbBGblUO7EXOqw40RIj8nksJ0kEWKeZ6aH8OgAoew82KGxpRDEz8wD
iOmjILPu1Vn+TUOw3hksoQB1ueIiZLAHJxOKhPudWGqOSjM5+ixiefVZ28bRAcgZ
OI8mZtjnBa3+HUeBjXkALFvWRL9ifhzo3CebZs/YlyngtkJEIQLNxu3o2waCeANl
VLyD+FFtJeal9P4et6J8200Q9BZ0D+uRDd1h5vRkXVogFLwq6OV7Yn0PwaZg4w2X
dM9/u7lzCb3XL5KpBPp+k4Z+KogrN9T6nlIl39GycTABneUXIf/CWQ==
=ddwI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----