Subject: [Roll] draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building re-submitted

From: "Anders Brandt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:29:42 +0100

The Applicability Statement on the use of RPL in Building and Home
Environments has been re-submitted
 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-buil
ding-01
 
The document (still) reflects the issues which initiated the development
effort on RPL P2P.
 
Best regards,
  Anders Brandt

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:58:58 +0100

Hi Anders,

So this is not an applicability statement but a problem statement - do you need a draft for that ?

Thanks.

JP.

On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Anders Brandt wrote:

> The Applicability Statement on the use of RPL in Building and Home Environments has been re-submitted
>  
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-01
>  
> The document (still) reflects the issues which initiated the development effort on RPL P2P.
>  
> Best regards,
>   Anders Brandt
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: "Anders Brandt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:03:43 +0100

Hi JP
 
Nothing is changed in the doc. It is the doc we agreed to make back in
Anaheim.
 
I just had to make a new submission to keep it alive.
It has to be alive to reflect that the current RPL spec does not fulfil
the requirements of the home and building applications.
 
That's all.
 
Cheers,
  Anders

________________________________

	From: JP Vasseur [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:59
	To: Anders Brandt
	Cc: ROLL WG
	Subject: Re: [Roll]
draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building re-submitted

	Hi Anders, 

	So this is not an applicability statement but a problem
statement - do you need a draft for that ?

	Thanks.

	JP.

		The Applicability Statement on the use of RPL in
Building and Home Environments has been re-submitted

		The document (still) reflects the issues which initiated
the development effort on RPL P2P.
		 
		Best regards,
		  Anders Brandt

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:19:33 +0100

Hi,

On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Anders Brandt wrote:

> Hi JP
>  
> Nothing is changed in the doc. It is the doc we agreed to make back in Anaheim.

Yes and this was needed as a problem statement to move ahead with the P2P enhanced solution,
which is now a WG document.

> It has to be alive to reflect that the current RPL spec does not fulfil the requirements of the home and building applications.
>  

You could move the problem statement in the solution ID if you will.

Cheers.

JP.

> Subject: Re: [Roll] draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building re-submitted
> 
> Hi Anders,
>

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:24:16 +0100

Hi Anders:

I tend to think of RPL as a whole. The "base" RPL spec has proactive
methods, with distributed states/routing and centralized state/routing
based on the RPL core tool set (DIS, DIO, DAO, metrics, OF).

The P2P draft adds a (pretty cool) reactive method based on (extending)
that same core tool set. There might be yet another angle in the future
whereby we add distributed states and yet centralized routing (in a TSMP
/ ISA100.11a fashion if you will), still based in the same core tool
set. And hopefully all these methods are compatible, complementary, and
could run in different instances in a same RPL domain.

For that reason, I wish to be very cautious in terms so that people do
not misread your last sentence as "RPL does not fulfil the requirements
of the home and building applications". 

Rather, I'd favor text that says that the RPL reactive method (the P2P)
is more appropriate than the proactive (base) RPL method for <these
usages> for <these reasons>. 

Along that drift, I'd favor  a reorganization of the P2P options so that
the draft reuses the existing target option for the DIO, and then adds
its own information as a new option that is really specific. I'll post
on that.

Cheers,

Pascal

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7011357/

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Anders Brandt
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 11:04 AM
To: JP Vasseur
Cc: ROLL WG
Subject: Re: [Roll]
draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-buildingre-submitted

Hi JP

That's all.

Cheers,

  Anders

	Hi Anders, 

	Thanks.

	JP.

	

	The Applicability Statement on the use of RPL in Building and
Home Environments has been re-submitted

	The document (still) reflects the issues which initiated the
development effort on RPL P2P.

	Best regards,

	  Anders Brandt