That can still be corrected (revive
draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07).
That was dropped because some people had various issues with it.
That draft, very roughly speaking, said "none of these existing
protocols do what we want because they fail to meet the ideal we
have set for these various reasons". The issues were over whether
all such characteristions were accurate. (Note that absolute accuracy
may not be essential to make a WG decision, but a higher standard
is needed in an RFC. But I do not recall what the specific issues
were.)
What I'd find interesting is whether RPL meets all of those ideals
itself. (That's a genuine question, I don't know.)
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf