Re: [Roll] Closing on Ticket #10

[Tim Winter <wintert at acm.org>]

My opinion is for Option 1.  I think that the applicability statements are
the right place to start pinning down interoperability w.r.t. OFs - as
appropriate to each application space.  This may also include
interoperability between application spaces.


-Tim


JP Vasseur wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> As a reminder Ticket #10 is related to a node behavior when receiving a
> DIO with an OF that it does not understand / support.
> 
> There was a strong consensus for the following option:
>>> Option 1: The node simply joins the DAG as a leaf. In order words,
>>> the node has connectivity since it joins the DAG but will not act as
>>> a router for others since it does not understand the OF. Parent
>>> selection could be a simply a "random".
> 
> Now the question is whether or not RPL mandates the support of OF0.
> 
> Again two options:
> 
> 1) We remove OF0 from the core spec. And nodes are free to implement the
> OF that they want
> 
> 2) We do mandate for each node to support OF0
> 
> Pros/Cons:
> 
> If the support of OF0 in no longer mandatory, nodes operating in an
> environment requiring a specific OF just have to implement that OF.
> On the other hand, when mixing nodes that do not support the same OF,
> they do not interoperate.
> 
> An alternative if we decide to make OF0 non mandatory is to indicate in
> some applicability statement the applications that would require the
> support of OF0.
> 
> Opinion ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>