#77: Improve relation to R01
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Reporter: dokaspar.i...@… | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: closed
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: routing-requirements | Version:
Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: fixed
Keywords: |
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Changes (by c...@…):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => fixed
Old description:
> R01: The requirement of making routing state number and size independent
> of the number of hosts is perfectly valid; however, the goal toward
> "routing protocol of low computational complexity in time and resources"
> combined with R10 "scalability in terms of number of reachable end-
> points" shall be better taken into account when specifying requirements
> such as R04, R05, R06, and R09.
New description:
R01: The requirement of making routing state number and size independent
of the number of hosts is perfectly valid; however, the goal toward
"routing protocol of low computational complexity in time and resources"
combined with R10 "scalability in terms of number of reachable end-points"
shall be better taken into account when specifying requirements such as
R04, R05, R06, and R09.
(From Routing Directorate Review of draft-ietf-6lowpan-routing-
requirements-06.txt, May 20, 2010)
--
Comment:
In -07, we are calling out the tradeoffs more explicitly in R05, R06, R09
(SVN-195).
(However, the text probably would become unreadable if we actually
mentioned every tradeoff in every place.)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/77#comment:1>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
