Hi Kris,
On Aug 10, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Kris Pister wrote:
JP - great presentation. I hope that it was well received. I'm
very supportive of everything in that document,
Thanks.
with one exception.
Ah ;-)
There is one assumption that I believe is potentially fatal to the
entire 6lowpan/rsn effort in ietf. On slide 11 you state "Research
has focused on near-optimal solutions to specific problems", and
then in bold "IP is maximizing interoperability, not aiming at
finding a local optimum ;-)". I agree with the second statement,
but the first one is flat out wrong.
Very few people in sensor network research seem to care about near-
optimal solutions.
OK let me first clarify something: first the statement was not
negative by all means but having reviewed quite a few
paper on WSN, there is a plethora of papers the aim of which is
indeed to find a near-optimal solutions to a very
specific problem. But you're right that this is not a generality. But
more importantly the point that I was trying to stress
is the following: the space of Sensor Networks or L2Ns to be a bit
more generic is highly fragmented and the set of
issues and constraints can vary significantly from one application to
another. Thus, trying to find a near optimal to
any specific problem would unavoidably lead to either N solutions
(which we want to avoid !). And indeed, one of the
greatest thing about IP is interoperability.
I heard many people in the past telling me that they HAD to define a
proprietary solution to get something optimal
for a specific environment. Not only this is quite arguable, but our
goal is to define a common set of IP-based solutions
that would address most of the problem space (not all, sorry).
Consider one of the best-received papers [Kim07] at the recent IPSN
conference. Note that the authors are leaders in the field, this
is a respected conference, one of the better papers, and this is
the dissertation work culminating four years of research on this
project. The paper presents the best academic work to date on
reliable multi-hop data collection, MP2P. The payload goodput in
this network was 1.4% of the channel bandwidth, at 100% radio duty
cycle. This is not "near-optimal" in any sense that I know.
If we start with 1.4%, and then degrade that so that we can
maximize interoperability, we'll be left with something that no one
will use. We have an opportunity to do this right - let's not fall
victim to the Zigbee-esque assumption that all we need to do is
define *something* and adoption will be automatic.
Note that I did not say that interoperability implied sub-sub-
optimality ;-) but I guess that I clarified my statement.
Thanks for your support.
JP.
ksjp
[Kim07] Kim, Pakzad, Culler, Demmel, Fenves, Glaser, Turon, "Health
Monitoring of Civil Infrastructures Using Wireless Sensor
Networks", IPSN07.
JP Vasseur wrote:
Hi Ved,
On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Ved Kafle wrote:
Hi JP,
Is it possible to get the presentation file you used in the
routing area
meeting?
I could find it on the web.
I was about to do so, here it is:
We'll soon have a Web Page to point to for RSN related work.
Thanks.
JP.
Ved Kafle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---
_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
