The Trickle Algorithm
RFC 6206

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2011-01-06 for -)
No email
send info
Well written specification and an interesting read. Thanks.

Looking at the other discusses, I do think that this is in the ROLL 
charter. Its part of the routing mechanisms.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

Comment (2010-12-24 for -)
No email
send info
Rtg Dir review from Alia Atlas says:

I have reviewed draft-ietf-roll-trickle-06.   It is one of the best drafts that I have read and I do not have any substantial or even editorial comments on it.  I found the protocol as described to be clear, simple and pretty elegant.

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2010-12-14 for -)
No email
send info
Nit: 3rd para of section 3, s/their/its/

Question: is the typical value of k in the range 1-5 independent of
the density of the network nodes, where I'm thinking of "density" as
the number of nodes that hear a given message?

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Comment (2010-12-14 for -)
No email
send info
In section 6.5 - The comment about "having the parameter describe k-1 instead of k being confusing" is confusing. I had to think for some time to convince myself that I understood what you were trying to say. I encourage you to further explain, or rewrite the comment. 

Why are you allowing different uses of trickle to give different meanings to k=0? It would seem to facilitate interoperability (and simplify implementation) if you just defined k=0 to mean turning off suppression in all cases. Individual uses of trickle can forbid setting k=0 if they don't want to allow turning off suppression. 

(Sean Turner) No Objection