Re: [Roll] Closing on Ticket #10

[Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca>]

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


>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey at ember.com> writes:
    >> 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.

    Richard> Given ROLL's charter, I think you have this the wrong way
    Richard> around.  ROLL is intended for use in small devices with
    Richard> limited resources.  If there is a subset of RPL use cases
    Richard> that need a generic, configurable implemenation of RPL, and
    Richard> for whom having that code present is acceptable, then that
    Richard> group should write a standards track document which says
    Richard> what they need to implement.
  
  I hear you.  The generic configurable implementation of RPL that I
speak of will be sold by operating system vendors.  I'm talking QNX,
WindRiver, MonteVista, and a dozen other smaller vendors that sell
toolkits.  
  
  So, which requirement does this document satisfy?
  Is it: - building routing requirements ...
         - home routing requirements   ...
         - indus routing requirements  RFC 5673
         - urban routing requirements  RFC 5548

  I also understand the comment about death by a thousand needle pricks.
Will these four stated things be satisfied by a single OFx?  Will there
be four OFx?  Or will many different ones be required for different
situations? 

  If there is no MUST for OF0, then we do not have anything we can
interoperate with, and so we do not have an IETF standard.   We might
have four standards, and if so, that's fine, then let's be explicit
about this.

  We have not discussed security very much yet.

  If there is not space for two OFx (OF0 and OFx) in the code space,
then I wonder if there will be space for any security.  As far as I can
tell, RPL will suffer from all the constraints that SNMP* experienced
with security.

- -- 
]       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

iQEVAwUBSv2B6ICLcPvd0N1lAQKqHwgAhxq0jke2itgQ8QfaKQ4c4POlkWpLxR6t
EfU+qdH4Ccjak16JtthNrnHc8xLgML/bFhdCp7su95SCbdHwj9b9jzAQsVV/0pLr
mGj0onL/No6NHUONlcEjPDNoLPM4LEZjDde9BgcqaaKTkMKW9VWjaK2lK2OCfjol
CnU8D2+tpNSiATj3HkUhsb2Gj70yagWmWI2OPxdPqP05huc6+UGYwPVKbnPcoGKm
y01NHhRUY2/GkaoD8gV4JibBNU9dtXWZfnmMsXEkORuJGdSPh5xIXTSdERPJ2Sdm
I2MjRESnKiebq4DWC3b7mInP99/wxbh586V7lIxT7nJX96V7orpmIw==
=Q/U4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----