> That can still be corrected (revive draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07). That was dropped because some people had various issues with it. That draft, very roughly speaking, said "none of these existing protocols do what we want because they fail to meet the ideal we have set for these various reasons". The issues were over whether all such characteristions were accurate. (Note that absolute accuracy may not be essential to make a WG decision, but a higher standard is needed in an RFC. But I do not recall what the specific issues were.) What I'd find interesting is whether RPL meets all of those ideals itself. (That's a genuine question, I don't know.) ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf