Hi all, Am 04.03.2015 um 15:54 schrieb Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Am 04.03.2015 um 15:50 schrieb Charlie Perkins > <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> Hello Lotte, >> >> Small follow-up below... >> >> On 3/4/2015 3:10 AM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote: >>> >>>> I will respond to this. I am O.K. with having the metric type be an >>>> extension >>>> type for the Metric. >> >> So let's do this... >> >>> >>> Well, when we're talking IoT, we're talking environments in which Hop Count >>> has been shown to deliver suboptimal results, if I remember the research >>> right. So IoT deployments most likely need other (new, experimental?) >>> metrics. By forcing them to add an additional MetricType TLV, we're >>> essentially penalizing environments which very much rely on having smaller >>> packets... >> >> What if in general we use Metric + extension type, but for HopCount we just >> use Metric? > > That could be a compromise.. Let me think about that. > >> >>> Nope, there wasn't but I could start one ;) >> >> Please do... > > Will do :) > So, after this has been done and has even spawned some feedback (yay!), I've put together a suggestion to incorporate extension types, as well as having DEFAULT_METRIC_TYPE be of value 0 and always set, as suggested by Henning. Since most of the draft is not 5444-specific, I mostly had to update section 10 and the algorithms. Before I post anything to the list, I thought I'd share with you folks in case I messed up something in the algorithms section or anything is unclear. I know Dallas is close, but in case somebody can find some time... Cheers, Lotte
>> but I will go ahead and issue revision 7 without this >> feature. The deadline is coming very soon. > > Of course! > >> If the discussion is >> smooth, we can issue a revision 8 before the actual meeting. >> >> Regards, >> Charlie P. >> >