Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation in Low-Power and Lossy Networks
RFC 6551
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 19 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert (was Discuss) Abstain
Section 1., paragraph 16: > flexibility to use link and node characterisics either as constraints Nit: s/characterisics/characteristics/ Section 1., paragraph 21: > and unneccessary routing changes. Nit: s/unneccessary/unnecessary/ Section 3., paragraph 1: > objet MUST silently be ignored. Nit: s/objet/object/ Section 4.1., paragraph 0: > 4.1. Throughput I think you mean (link) capacity here and not throughput. See the definition in RFC5136; could you adopt this definition here? Section 4.2., paragraph 0: > 4.2. Latency See the definitions in RFC2679, can they be adopted here? Also, is this metric supposed to include buffering/queueing delay (which is load dependent) or is it purely supposed to capture the link transmission delay? If the former, that can vary quite a bit more... Section 4.3.2., paragraph 12: > the path (cummulative path ETX calculated as the sum of the link ETX Nit: s/(cummulative/(cumulative/ Section 7., paragraph 1: > consist of making intermitment attacks on a link in an attempt to Nit: s/intermitment/intermittent/ Section 8., paragraph 1: > valuable comments. Special thank to Adrian Farrel for his thourough Nit: s/thourough/thorough/
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
In 2.1: The A field has no meaning when the C Flag is set (i.e. when the Routing Metric/Constraint object refers to a routing constraint) and he only valid when the R bit is cleared. Otherwise, the A field MUST Is "he" should be here at all? be set to 0x00 and MUST be ignored on receipt. 4.1. Throughput Throughput: 32 bits. The Throughput is encoded in 32 bits in unsigned integer format, In network byte order? (Also in 4.2) expressed in bytes per second.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
1. The way the Flag field is defined in Figure 1 is confusing. The field is defined as length 16 bits, but then there are 5 bits labelled Flags on the diagram which are actually the currently reserved or un-allocated Flags. The A field and PRec filed are part of the Flag field, but there is no indication or indent to make this clear. 2. Expand DIO at first occurence 3. Section 4.1 - the Throughput object seems to be mis-named. Looks more like Link Capacity.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
Based on the reviews provided by IESG members more expert than I in the technology under consideration, I am ballotting "No Objection". That said, based on my own review I concur with the DISCUSS raised by Jari Arkko regarding the complexity of the system.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection