Re: [Roll] Closing on Ticket #10

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert at cisco.com>]

Hi Richard

>My hope is that we will need no more than one or two OFxs.
>The reason we need to be flexible now is not that we are
>likely to need many of them, but that we don't know which
>ones are the right ones.

We disagree on this. There might be one or 2 OCPs coming out with for
RPL for this round of specification, OK. Probably more if we really need
to meet all the requirement drafts. But there could be many different
sorts of deployments that we do not cover here, and thus many OCPs, some
defined in some future at the IETF, some designed by other SDOs like of
ETSI, ISA or IEC, and some proprietary value-added proposals. As long as
the OCP conform the general rules in RPL, that should be fine, and the
generic part of the wheel does not have to be reinvented each time.

My hope when I designed the plugins in MANEMO was to build a generic DV
platform that could be instantiated for many specific environments, just
like SIP can.
RPL inherited the concept, though it lost/barred the capability to mix
OCPs and degrade to OCP0 at the edges. 
Still, the loop avoidance remains totally generic, based on an abstract
rank, so RPL retains the capability to be instantiated in many fashions.
I think that is a powerful idea.

Pascal