Subject: [Roll] Mentioning link layer names in RPL doc

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:11:38 +0200

I think the draft should mention more about the link layers it uses.

For example here:
> RPL is designed to be able to operate over a variety of different
> link layers, including but not limited to, low power wireless or PLC
> (Power Line Communication) technologies.

It is the only name of a link layer appearing in the draft (if I read it
correctly).  I think more names should appear, to not give the
impression that PLC were paramount.

And for "PLC" the name of that particular PLC technology (IEEE
something?) is worth to write.

Alex

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:16:11 +0200

Hi Alex,

> something?) is worth to write.

The reasons for not mentioning explicitly link layers is precisely  
because we must
stay agnostic to the link layer, operating at the layer 3. Step back  
3-4 years ago:
pretty much the link layer for low power operation was IEEE 802.15.4.  
While still
an important one, many others ones are in the works or have been  
defined. What
we need to do is to explain the design choices of RPL in light of  
their characteristics,
which is what it is done in the document.

Thanks.

JP.

> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:22:12 +0200

Le 25/07/2010 10:16, JP Vasseur a écrit :
>>> RPL is designed to be able to operate over a variety of
>>> different link layers, including but not limited to, low power
>>> wireless or PLC (Power Line Communication) technologies.
>>
>> It is the only name of a link layer appearing in the draft (if I
>> read it correctly). I think more names should appear, to not give
>> the impression that PLC were paramount.
>>
> because we must stay agnostic to the link layer, operating at the
> layer 3. Step back 3-4 years ago: pretty much the link layer for low
>  power operation was IEEE 802.15.4. While still an important one,
> many others ones are in the works or have been defined. What we need
> to do is to explain the design choices of RPL in light of their
> characteristics, which is what it is done in the document.

Ok... but mentioning "PLC" and not any other tech (like Ethernet) seems
to intentionally give more weight to PLC than others.  Is this the
intention?

PLC reads half-way from completely independent of link layer and some
specific IEEE xxx protocol.  Why not Ethernet too?  (which reads similary).

Alex

>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>
>> Alex _______________________________________________ Roll mailing
>> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:05:39 +0200

>>>> wireless or PLC (Power Line Communication) technologies.

To answer your question, PLC is explicitly mentioned since lots of  
work has
been done in this area on WSN, the intention was (according to our  
charter)
to be explicit about the fact that RPL has been also designed for low  
power
and lossy PLC link. Note also the "not limited to", which includes  
Ethernet
and many others.