Hi Alvaro,
Yes, I'm fine; I hope you are also in good health.
Since a year I am not following the undercurrents in the ROLL WG. I am unable to tell you what they think about replacing rfc6997 currently.
When I was chair, I was more concerned with the continuation of the document than eventual consequences for rfc6697.
However, I think that this is the right moment to reconsider the replacement question.
Having two aodv documents may be confusing for ROLL adopters.
BTW, I encouraged the creation and development of rfc6697 for the reasons mentioned in the document.
When replacement is considered, this motivation is needed in the new aodv draft.
Hope this explains a bit better my review remarks.
Greetings,
Peter
Alvaro Retana schreef op 2021-04-15 20:57:
On April 15, 2021 at 5:55:57 AM, Peter Van der Stok wrote: Peter: Hi! I hope you're doing well!
In general, the document is well written. By looking regularly into RFC 6550,
I am rather sure that I could implement the protocol. The question remains
how this draft relates to RFC 6997. When the WG decides that this draft
replaces RFC 6997, then it would be good to copy some text from 6997 to this
draft, because RFC 6997 is more explicit about the use of RPL parameters as
specified in RFC 6550 and presents more explicit motivation.
As you know, the roll WG considered the question of replacing rfc6997 as part of my AD review [ 1]. At the time there didn't seem to be any strong interest in doing so. Do you think that has changed? Thanks for the review! Alvaro. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/r3MP2MKrWqTMVmAQjKJDfU6iu-A/
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
