Subject: [Rfid] status of the SLRRP effort

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:25:19 -0400

Can someone tell me the status of this effort within the IETF?

There has been relatively little traffic on the list since the
Minneapolis BOF. I also don't recall discussion of a revised charter,
or submission of one to the IESG for formal consideration. Finally,
with the Paris meeting coming up, there has been no followup
concerning whether a meeting is planned and/or what its focus would
be.

Can I assume that the conclusion of the Minneapolis BOF is that no WG
will be formed at this time?

Thomas

_______________________________________________
Rfid mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:28:25 -0700

> will be formed at this time?

i think a combination of summer vacations, the usual negotiations,  
etc., have led you to an inaccurate conclusion. i have not seen  
anything in the iesg minutes to the contrary.

/mtr

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:03:07 -0400

Marshall - I must admit I read the following, from the "Minutes of the
March 31, 2005 IESG Teleconference", as meaning that no WG would be
formed...

   o Simple Lightweight RFID Reader Protocol (slrrp) - 1 of 1
   Token: Scott Hollenbeck

   The IESG decided not to approve the charter for the working 
   group at this time.  

Based on your e-mail, I should take this text at literal face value: the
charter was simply not approved ... but future action was not ruled out.

- Ralph

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:10:25 -0400

Marshall Rose <[email-masked]> writes:

> the wording is poor. i am informed that a more accurate rendition is

>      at the present time, the IESG decided not to take a vote

> of course, the IESG is free to clarify as it feels appropriate.

Um, this is all rather unclear. My original question stands. What is
the status of this effort? 

If the IESG has decided not to charter the WG at this time, what are
the issues and what needs to be done?  And do people think its worth
continuing in light of the IESG issues? I don't recall seeing a
message to this list explaining the IESG action or the planned next
steps. Are those that have been working with the AD(s) to put together
a charter following up? Are there plans for a meeting in Paris?
(e.g., someone has to request a timeslot if there is to be meeting)

I'm seeing rather mixed responses from different people.

Thomas

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:35:52 -0700

/mtr

---

From: Scott Barvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:21:30 -0400

Thomas,

This is a good question.  I get asked it often enough that I'll
summarize the status on the list.

After the BoF in March which was successful by all usual metrics,
Marshall and I have been actively working with Bert Wijnen to prepare
for a decision by the IESG.   The main open issue is the relationship of
the SLRRP effort to related efforts, and Bert is taking this
seriously.   Without attempting to speak for him, our action is to show
that there is support for SLRRP.   In this area, I believe it is valid
to say that support is growing.  

Some other status of the effort.  

o) There are two known (to me) implementations underway even at this
early stage in the process.   One is ours, but I'm not at liberty to say
who is doing the other one.  
o) An open source project on SourceForge has been established and
populated with a base, working implementation.  This project is intended
to have community development to fill in the implementation and
implement the protocol as it moves forward.
o) A test tool vendor (Polaris Networks) is active on the list and has
indicated that they are developing a SLRRP decoder and sniffer (on the
list).  I'm not the one to speak for them about their specific plans, of
course.  
o) We are having private conversations with folks including reader
vendors, chip makers, and application vendors who have indicated their
interest in SLRRP.  We would like this interest to become public, but
there are difficulties in some cases given that we are not yet
chartered.   
o) We continue to work with representatives from ISO and EPCGlobal to
find the appropriate working relationship among the 3 organizations.  

I hope this helps.  We are continuing to push this forward so that we
can get to a standard as quickly as possible.  If anyone wants to add to
the status, it would be great to hear about it.

Scott

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:25:17 -0400

Thanks Scott, your explanation helps. I asked because folk that have
asked me didn't seem to know what the exact status was.

Two more questions:

Is there a current version of the charter that reflects discussion
that has been had with the IESG, or is the charter for the "slrrp
effort" still essentially the same as the one presented at the BOF?

Second, for planning purposes, is there an expectation of a meeting in
Paris? (I'm not asking for one, just want to know if one is expected
or not.)

Thomas

---

From: Bud Biswas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT)

Scott:
 
Another point we should mention is that since the March 31 meeting at IETF, slrrp support has significantly increased in the past three months. Now I myself know of half a dozen companies who are either adding slrrp support or are "very" interested in doing so if IETF nad EPC Global can both support this.  Polaris is going ahead with a slrrp decoder/sniffer and other slrrp test tools.
 
Bud

Scott Barvick <[email-masked]> wrote:
Thomas,

Scott

On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 06:10, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Marshall Rose writes:

Polaris Networks
your source for rfid test tools

---

From: Scott Barvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:14:33 -0400

Thomas,

Under Bert's direction, we've been tweaking the proposed charter a bit
to get it ready for IESG review.   It is not substantively different
from what was discussed at the BoF, but it is included below so that
everyone is up to date. 

The biggest changes are:
1) A new, catchy WG name (CAIRO).  Very important :)
2) A more explicit breakout of the operations and management functions
that are not part of the actual SLRRP protocol.  These would be tackled
by the Working Group after a successful completion of the SLRRP spec. 
This has always been the advice and the plan, but the wording was a bit
ambiguous.
3) More detail on the Interaction with Other Standards Bodies and how we
would attempt to make sure that IETF output would be compatible with
outputs from the other RFID organizations.
4) Also, the milestone dates keep being updated because the remaining
dates depend on the WG charter date.  However, we do want to aggressive
and keep the relative timing as shown.

I can't say that this is what Bert will be comfortable presenting to the
IESG (he is on vacation), but this is the current state of the draft. 
Comments from the list are appreciated as we continue to tune this.

Also, I don't know what the recommendation for Paris would be given the
timing.  It doesn't seem necessary or useful to hold another BoF, but
I'm not sure that we have time to get an official working group meeting
time together.   I'll ask Bert when he gets back.
 
Scott