Standard

=3D=3D=3D=3D> In mesh under case, the assumption is that al= l hosts=20 are directly IP-reachable from 6LBR. How the packets are flown fr= om a=20 host to the 6LBR ( using a L2-mechanism) is out of scope of the docume= nt.=20 Currently I don't know of L2-routing protocols for mesh-under ne= twork=20 - however, there might be some proprietary ones.

My problem is in multihop configuration : how the multicast Router=20 Solicitation messages, used by the neighbor discovery protocol, can reach t= he=20 6LBR ?

Does it depends on the routing protocol used ?

=3D=3D=3D=3D> Please check the section 10 (Examples) = to get an=20 understanding how the routers and hosts bootstrap in the multi-hop 6lowpan= =20 networks. Initial multicast RS is sent only to the local subnet = and=20 taken care by the local 6LR router in case of route-over=20 scenario.

-Samita

--_000_16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D72AB46D2FCEEUSAACMS0715e_-- From mjlee999@gmail.com Mon Jun 4 20:40:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4E121F86E0 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:40:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8+bM6uVfi7kN for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f49.google.com (mail-qa0-f49.google.com [209.85.216.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7629B21F86DE for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so2371550qab.15 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:40:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=R4vzEq8RLTEo4dBcl0VXHcFM3lLUzfridNOTNe/93qY=; b=tCdEeuE/AHwnD8tJpY+rLYQHc3J2BF3nLDDHbZi+rX6wb5eNXjd7Dv8E2yzKZgKgU3 g7vBvQtTIKWKIuNwa8gU28ijiDw5hgjE+piUH3A3zcEQ4qWsHJOBocGx3V9MRC4IRx/p 2cM21tcRI/S6ovh/4ZUy8bwd4vUP71+q7gtJRMPjERWmqGflOS7ux6/lk5/x6Jt1F234 1OdNOO1AzuB5tuHto7U67h1LQ4GYc9rUFz0JUTfGmiD4r1EQ8+Y4vas/KkxhgzfzLdsV KVCAdmFi60XdQU3s7UhBl8muznQYJHBlkDbpDHjPPbMAcLzGaFvWxHmSM/CKdiztCVox S39Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.136.144 with SMTP id r16mr4374467qct.111.1338867657939; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mjlee999@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.137.81 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:40:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D72AB46D2FCE@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <1DBF40D7-49EA-458B-AED7-0B34FBCB9FB2@gmail.com> <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D72AB46D2FCE@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:40:57 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dREptls6j5rWuMtdgc-IpbbHB-U Message-ID: From: Myung Jong Lee To: Samita Chakrabarti Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00248c711805271b7804c1b16bcb Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Mesh under routing and Neighbor Discovery X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 03:42:21 -0000 --00248c711805271b7804c1b16bcb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Damien and all, Though I am not an active member for 6lowpan, I just like to note that there is a "mesh under" routing standard, IEEE 802.15.5 a recommended practice, completed in 2009. You may take a look at it. It is built on IEEE 802.15.4b and sitting below IP layer. I believe it could be one of the feasible approaches for mesh under technologies. For the details, you may refer to the standard itself or the paper, " IEEE 802.15.5 WPAN mesh standard-low rate part: meshing the wireless sensor networks," IEEE JSAC, Vol 28, No. 7, 2010 . Thanks, Myung On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Samita Chakrabarti < samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com> wrote: > ** > Hi Damien, > > Please find responses in-line. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] *On > Behalf Of *Damien Roth > *Sent:* Monday, June 04, 2012 5:03 AM > *To:* 6lowpan@ietf.org > *Subject:* [6lowpan] Mesh under routing and Neighbor Discovery > > Hello, > > I continue my investigations the neighbor discovery protocol > for 6LoWPAN (draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18), and there is one point that remains > unclear to me. > > With 6LoWPAN, two routing mechanisms can be used : route over and mesh > under. Everything is OK with the route over mechanism but I'm locked with > mesh-under. In mesh-under routing, there is only two entities, the 6LBR > (border router) and the hosts. Multiple hops may be needed to for hosts to > reach the 6LBR. > > ====> In mesh under case, the assumption is that all hosts are directly > IP-reachable from 6LBR. How the packets are flown from a host to the 6LBR ( > using a L2-mechanism) is out of scope of the document. Currently I don't > know of L2-routing protocols for mesh-under network - however, there might > be some proprietary ones. > > My problem is in multihop configuration : how the multicast Router > Solicitation messages, used by the neighbor discovery protocol, can reach > the 6LBR ? > Does it depends on the routing protocol used ? > > > ====> Please check the section 10 (Examples) to get an understanding how > the routers and hosts bootstrap in the multi-hop 6lowpan networks. Initial > multicast RS is sent only to the local subnet and taken care by the local > 6LR router in case of route-over scenario. > > > > -Samita > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > -- Myung J. Lee, Ph.D Professor Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering City University of New York, City College 140th Street, New York, NY 10031 (O)+1-212-650-7260 (E) lee@ccny.cuny.edu --00248c711805271b7804c1b16bcb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Damien and all,

Though I am not an active member for = 6lowpan, I just like to note that there =A0is a "mesh under" rout= ing standard, IEEE 802.15.5 a recommended practice, completed in 2009. You = may take a look at it. It is built on IEEE 802.15.4b and sitting below IP l= ayer. =A0 =A0I believe it could be one of the feasible approaches for mesh = under technologies.=A0For the details, you may refer to the standard itself= or the paper, " IEEE 802.15.5 WPAN mesh standard-low rate part: meshi= ng the wireless sensor networks," IEEE JSAC, Vol 28, No. 7, 2010 .

Thanks,

Myung

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Sam= ita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi Damien,

=A0

Please find responses in-line.

=A0

From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:6lowp= an-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Damien=20 Roth
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:03 AM
To:=20 6lowpan@ietf.org<= br>Subject: [6lowpan] Mesh under routing and Neighbor=20 Discovery

Hello,

I continue my investigations the neighbor discovery protocol=20 for=A06LoWPAN=A0(draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18), and there is one point that=20 remains unclear to me.

With 6LoWPAN, two routing mechanisms can be used : route over and mesh= =20 under. Everything is OK with the route over mechanism but I'm locked wi= th=20 mesh-under. In mesh-under routing, there is only two entities, the 6LBR (bo= rder=20 router) and the hosts. Multiple hops may be needed to for hosts to reach th= e=20 6LBR.=A0

=A0

=3D=3D=3D=3D> In= mesh under case, the assumption is that all=A0hosts=20 are directly IP-reachable from 6LBR.=A0How the packets are=A0flown from a= =20 host to the 6LBR=A0( using a L2-mechanism) is out of scope of the document.= =20 Currently I don't know=A0of =A0L2-routing protocols for mesh-under netw= ork=20 - however, there=A0might be=A0some proprietary ones.

My problem is in multihop configuration : how the multicast Router=20 Solicitation messages, used by the neighbor discovery protocol, can reach t= he=20 6LBR ?

Does it depends on the routing protocol used ?=A0=A0

=A0

=A0

=3D=3D=3D=3D>=A0= Please check the section 10 (Examples) to get an=20 understanding how the routers and hosts bootstrap in the multi-hop 6lowpan= =20 networks.=A0 Initial multicast RS is sent only to the local subnet=A0 and= =20 taken care by the local 6LR router in case of route-over=20 scenario.

=A0

=A0

=A0

-Samita

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

--
Myung J.= Lee, Ph.D
Professor
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
= City University of New York, City College
140th Street, New York, NY 100= 31
(O)+1-212-650-7260
(E) lee@ccny.cuny.edu

--00248c711805271b7804c1b16bcb-- From rgm@labs.htt-consult.com Fri Jun 8 07:08:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031ED21F885B for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:08:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hPtdwErtsjsQ for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A96021F8435 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9523F62A86; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:07:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at localhost Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2+9dLQxNmQ0I; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (157.67.83.208.client.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.157]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@labs.htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A5B2362A81; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FD20710.4000404@labs.htt-consult.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:07:12 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Myung Jong Lee References: <1DBF40D7-49EA-458B-AED7-0B34FBCB9FB2@gmail.com> <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D72AB46D2FCE@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080006060802020509000806" Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Mesh under routing and Neighbor Discovery X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:08:01 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080006060802020509000806 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Further on this. My understanding is that 802.15.5 is NOT being used by anyone. Zigbee has their own mesh methodology. I do not have the documents, but as it was described to me, it is based on path discovery after network admission. There is a new Mesh Under Routing Interest Group in 802.15, with a call for submissions for for the July 15th meeting. This IG is not yet on the document server, it seems the submissions are being posted under the WNG SG: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/documents?is_group=wng0 So far there is one submission: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/12/15-12-0268-01-wng0-l2-routing-demands-for-fan.ppt Mesh under IS out of scope for IETF and 6lowpan. It IS in scope for 802.15. Unfortunately to play in IEEE, you have to pay. That is attend a meeting. Though the document server is publicly available. Oh the chair for this study group is Clint Powell, cpowell@ieee.org. On 06/04/2012 11:40 PM, Myung Jong Lee wrote: > Hi Damien and all, > > Though I am not an active member for 6lowpan, I just like to note that > there is a "mesh under" routing standard, IEEE 802.15.5 a recommended > practice, completed in 2009. You may take a look at it. It is built on > IEEE 802.15.4b and sitting below IP layer. I believe it could be > one of the feasible approaches for mesh under technologies. For the > details, you may refer to the standard itself or the paper, " IEEE > 802.15.5 WPAN mesh standard-low rate part: meshing the wireless sensor > networks," IEEE JSAC, Vol 28, No. 7, 2010 . > > Thanks, > > Myung > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Samita Chakrabarti > > wrote: > > Hi Damien, > Please find responses in-line. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Damien Roth > *Sent:* Monday, June 04, 2012 5:03 AM > *To:* 6lowpan@ietf.org > *Subject:* [6lowpan] Mesh under routing and Neighbor Discovery > > Hello, > > I continue my investigations the neighbor discovery protocol > for 6LoWPAN (draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18), and there is one point > that remains unclear to me. > > With 6LoWPAN, two routing mechanisms can be used : route over and > mesh under. Everything is OK with the route over mechanism but I'm > locked with mesh-under. In mesh-under routing, there is only two > entities, the 6LBR (border router) and the hosts. Multiple hops > may be needed to for hosts to reach the 6LBR. > ====> In mesh under case, the assumption is that all hosts are > directly IP-reachable from 6LBR. How the packets are flown from a > host to the 6LBR ( using a L2-mechanism) is out of scope of the > document. Currently I don't know of L2-routing protocols for > mesh-under network - however, there might be some proprietary ones. > > My problem is in multihop configuration : how the multicast Router > Solicitation messages, used by the neighbor discovery protocol, > can reach the 6LBR ? > Does it depends on the routing protocol used ? > ====> Please check the section 10 (Examples) to get an > understanding how the routers and hosts bootstrap in the multi-hop > 6lowpan networks. Initial multicast RS is sent only to the local > subnet and taken care by the local 6LR router in case of > route-over scenario. > -Samita > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > > > > -- > Myung J. Lee, Ph.D > Professor > Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering > City University of New York, City College > 140th Street, New York, NY 10031 > (O)+1-212-650-7260 > (E) lee@ccny.cuny.edu > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan -- Robert Moskowitz Senior Technical Advisor Security & Standards Verizon Business Systems C:248-219-2059 F:248-968-2824 E:robert.moskowitz@verizonbusiness.com There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit --------------080006060802020509000806 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Further on this.

My understanding is that 802.15.5 is NOT being used by anyone.

Zigbee has their own mesh methodology. I do not have the documents, but as it was described to me, it is based on path discovery after network admission.

There is a new Mesh Under Routing Interest Group in 802.15, with a call for submissions for for the July 15th meeting. This IG is not yet on the document server, it seems the submissions are being posted under the WNG SG:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/documents?is_group=wng0

So far there is one submission:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/12/15-12-0268-01-wng0-l2-routing-demands-for-fan.ppt

Mesh under IS out of scope for IETF and 6lowpan. It IS in scope for 802.15. Unfortunately to play in IEEE, you have to pay. That is attend a meeting. Though the document server is publicly available.

Oh the chair for this study group is Clint Powell, cpowell@ieee.org.

On 06/04/2012 11:40 PM, Myung Jong Lee wrote:

Hi Damien and all,

Though I am not an active member for 6lowpan, I just like to note that there is a "mesh under" routing standard, IEEE 802.15.5 a recommended practice, completed in 2009. You may take a look at it. It is built on IEEE 802.15.4b and sitting below IP layer. I believe it could be one of the feasible approaches for mesh under technologies. For the details, you may refer to the standard itself or the paper, " IEEE 802.15.5 WPAN mesh standard-low rate part: meshing the wireless sensor networks," IEEE JSAC, Vol 28, No. 7, 2010 .

Thanks,

Myung

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi Damien,

Please find responses in-line.

From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Damien Roth
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:03 AM
To: 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: [6lowpan] Mesh under routing and Neighbor Discovery

Hello,

I continue my investigations the neighbor discovery protocol for 6LoWPAN (draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18), and there is one point that remains unclear to me.

With 6LoWPAN, two routing mechanisms can be used : route over and mesh under. Everything is OK with the route over mechanism but I'm locked with mesh-under. In mesh-under routing, there is only two entities, the 6LBR (border router) and the hosts. Multiple hops may be needed to for hosts to reach the 6LBR.

====> In mesh under case, the assumption is that all hosts are directly IP-reachable from 6LBR. How the packets are flown from a host to the 6LBR ( using a L2-mechanism) is out of scope of the document. Currently I don't know of L2-routing protocols for mesh-under network - however, there might be some proprietary ones.

My problem is in multihop configuration : how the multicast Router Solicitation messages, used by the neighbor discovery protocol, can reach the 6LBR ?

Does it depends on the routing protocol used ?

====> Please check the section 10 (Examples) to get an understanding how the routers and hosts bootstrap in the multi-hop 6lowpan networks. Initial multicast RS is sent only to the local subnet and taken care by the local 6LR router in case of route-over scenario.

-Samita

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

--
Myung J. Lee, Ph.D
Professor
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
City University of New York, City College
140th Street, New York, NY 10031
(O)+1-212-650-7260
(E) lee@ccny.cuny.edu
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

--
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Senior Technical Advisor
Security & Standards
Verizon Business Systems
C:

248-219-2059
F:

248-968-2824
E:

robert.moskowitz@verizonbusiness.com

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit

--------------080006060802020509000806-- From ben@blindcreek.com Fri Jun 8 09:17:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013CD21F88E8 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:17:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vOQmp-VWc0C9 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wilson.nswebhost.com (wilson.nswebhost.com [209.217.228.59]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F80221F88C9 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:17:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blindcreek.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=LGQv1Gof5d9Q04JGLRRPS9350sbVm2UBs5yf0Vqk2yc=; b=HqewcldR2OymJlojTpKcr8uxohriHphUtVq1YhXTSnB08HtKkOEeAeYFO31/jzpsuueWaIg6teekWYa1jfIVqPo/49lv8HW5QlmnGdetl55HI5T4UBJI7Zu5/xt4C8RX; Received: from [64.74.213.174] (port=53698 helo=[192.168.250.11]) by wilson.nswebhost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Sd1s7-0000Ql-Rx for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:17:12 -0500 Message-ID: <4FD22597.3050808@blindcreek.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:17:27 -0700 From: "Benjamin A. Rolfe" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 6lowpan@ietf.org References: <1DBF40D7-49EA-458B-AED7-0B34FBCB9FB2@gmail.com> <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D72AB46D2FCE@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4FD20710.4000404@labs.htt-consult.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD20710.4000404@labs.htt-consult.com> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - wilson.nswebhost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - blindcreek.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Mesh under routing and Neighbor Discovery X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:17:16 -0000 Thanks Myung and Robert for bringing attention to the work already done and being considered in 802.15. I would like to add a couple clarifying points to help people understand how to participate.

Robert correctly points out that there is a fee to attend 802 plenary meetings (face to face physical meetings). In Working Group (WG) 802.15, there is also a fee for attending the interim meetings. The current rules require physical attendance to achieve voting status in a working group. However, that is not the only way one can participate and contribute. Traditionally much of the work occurs between meetings via the email reflector and teleconferences, which are open to anyone who wishes to participate. All contributions used during development of a draft are posted to the open document server, and WG 15 allows anyone to post documents (you need an IEEE "login" which you can free even if you are not an IEEE member). In the past many significant contributions have been made by folks unable to attend physical meetings. Generally if a good idea is presented in any of the various mediums (physical, TC, email) the group will take it and run with it.

Establishment of an Interest Group (IG) is not an indication that the WG has decided if the proposed idea fits within scope of a particular standard or recommended practice. At this point, it has not been decided if L2 routing is "in scope" of 802.15.4 PHY/MAC standard. I expect we will hear more than on opinion on this, and perhaps some enthusiastic discussion. There are several paths it may take, the IG is the first step in figuring out where to start.

Hope this helps!

-Ben

Further on this.

My understanding is that 802.15.5 is NOT being used by anyone.

Zigbee has their own mesh methodology. I do not have the documents, but as it was described to me, it is based on path discovery after network admission.

There is a new Mesh Under Routing Interest Group in 802.15, with a call for submissions for for the July 15th meeting. This IG is not yet on the document server, it seems the submissions are being posted under the WNG SG:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/documents?is_group=wng0

So far there is one submission:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/12/15-12-0268-01-wng0-l2-routing-demands-for-fan.ppt

Mesh under IS out of scope for IETF and 6lowpan. It IS in scope for 802.15. Unfortunately to play in IEEE, you have to pay. That is attend a meeting. Though the document server is publicly available.

Oh the chair for this study group is Clint Powell, cpowell@ieee.org.

On 06/04/2012 11:40 PM, Myung Jong Lee wrote:
Hi Damien and all,

Though I am not an active member for 6lowpan, I just like to note that there is a "mesh under" routing standard, IEEE 802.15.5 a recommended practice, completed in 2009. You may take a look at it. It is built on IEEE 802.15.4b and sitting below IP layer. I believe it could be one of the feasible approaches for mesh under technologies. For the details, you may refer to the standard itself or the paper, " IEEE 802.15.5 WPAN mesh standard-low rate part: meshing the wireless sensor networks," IEEE JSAC, Vol 28, No. 7, 2010 .

Thanks,

Myung

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi Damien,

Please find responses in-line.

From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Damien Roth
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:03 AM
To: 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: [6lowpan] Mesh under routing and Neighbor Discovery

Hello,

I continue my investigations the neighbor discovery protocol for 6LoWPAN (draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18), and there is one point that remains unclear to me.

With 6LoWPAN, two routing mechanisms can be used : route over and mesh under. Everything is OK with the route over mechanism but I'm locked with mesh-under. In mesh-under routing, there is only two entities, the 6LBR (border router) and the hosts. Multiple hops may be needed to for hosts to reach the 6LBR.

====> In mesh under case, the assumption is that all hosts are directly IP-reachable from 6LBR. How the packets are flown from a host to the 6LBR ( using a L2-mechanism) is out of scope of the document. Currently I don't know of L2-routing protocols for mesh-under network - however, there might be some proprietary ones.

My problem is in multihop configuration : how the multicast Router Solicitation messages, used by the neighbor discovery protocol, can reach the 6LBR ?

Does it depends on the routing protocol used ?

====> Please check the section 10 (Examples) to get an understanding how the routers and hosts bootstrap in the multi-hop 6lowpan networks. Initial multicast RS is sent only to the local subnet and taken care by the local 6LR router in case of route-over scenario.

-Samita

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

--
Myung J. Lee, Ph.D
Professor
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
City University of New York, City College
140th Street, New York, NY 10031
(O)+1-212-650-7260
(E) lee@ccny.cuny.edu
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
--
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Senior Technical Advisor
Security & Standards
Verizon Business Systems
C:      248-219-2059
F:      248-968-2824
E:      robert.moskowitz@verizonbusiness.com

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

From mcr@sandelman.ca Tue Jun 12 12:28:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6479F21F867F; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:28:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.18 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.280, BAYES_40=-0.185, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TexIFz8fMUwz; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D287E21F867E; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0AAB8297; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:25:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id EF97298239; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1ED98147; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:28:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6lowpan@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:28:10 -0400 Message-ID: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:28:14 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to discuss alternatives. Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 speaking for myself --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT9eYSoqHRg3pndX9AQICkQQAj5s3pZS7LmSCSYa28hZpZGBQ7QvHLEkO olnZXcV2DFVr6goaeuIPrley0eTx28qOkBbzsyXYlIbNQIJSERytp9ELEbVbpy5c D2l05VlApXbvLSF4j1kMoZqI59/0faq/DbOOjfv7vKpyqTsz7Fo72dHu9qDOOD2g /axUlSHnPNU= =yN5e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From zach@sensinode.com Tue Jun 12 12:36:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FDF21F86EE; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:36:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id akm8QLENi6md; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth-smtp.nebula.fi (auth-smtp.nebula.fi [217.30.180.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4231921F86E2; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.4] (85-156-197-8.elisa-mobile.fi [85.156.197.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth-smtp.nebula.fi (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q5CJaYpm027590; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:36:34 +0300 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Zach Shelby In-Reply-To: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:36:33 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4A21D218-A6AA-496A-9F86-2307748EE80A@sensinode.com> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: roll@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:36:39 -0000 +1 - I also would find this useful! And at least as a starting point = this is a solid I-D. On Jun 12, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: >=20 > I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted = as > a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to > discuss alternatives. >=20 > Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC > to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to > make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. >=20 > --=20 > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20= > speaking for myself >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan --=20 Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. http://www.sensinode.com http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet" Mobile: +358 40 7796297 From mcr@sandelman.ca Tue Jun 12 12:39:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D7321F870B; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:39:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.983, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tE4crChTvZme; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A6221F86E2; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2025C8297; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id EA10398239; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13E798147; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:39:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6lowpan@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:39:06 -0400 Message-ID: <21763.1339529946@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: [6lowpan] LLN roadmap documents: more missing pieces X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:39:11 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a private (IM) chat between Carsten Bormann and I, we realized that there was prescious little consensus about what building blocks will be used where.=20=20 For instance, I have assumed that a ROLL RPL network would not need=20 the ND parts of 6lowpan-ND, only the DAD parts (if DAD was important). That ND was unnecessary in for RPL nodes as the DAOs and DIOs served the same purpose. This surprised some others. What Carsten said was that some kind of roadmap was necessary. In another hallway conversation at Paris, I came to understand that for layer-2=3D=3DZigbee, that on Zigbee Controllers would ever need to run RPL, and that the regular nodes (such as light switches, forgive me, I do not recall their Zigbee name), would only communicate with a controller. This in contrast to what I know the home automation/P2P people are doing. Finally, I wanted to bring your attention to=20 draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt which I'm told 6man is supposed to consider.=20=20 On some networks you can not send the DAOs or NDs out until you do this. I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT9ea2oqHRg3pndX9AQJhDQQAziwu6dv+0MxpNBIwP1s40eO+TBgswHfW szgLOLaTkk7zyWzkvxXj83eDAyDs37K5K2Ar7HtHI7grfB1j9DpJpFKzvxH7WcPA aHaDSg7z15JOdsnb90AQg4URIgP/2MwRI9lw+w21HhR8IkZouhv3xcQqz0L8OoLe 85KBrp9mjPQ= =4OPi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Tue Jun 12 12:51:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D284221F86F0 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.496, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s+Y0smcG4xmo for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm31-vm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm31-vm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.229.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 018A521F86D8 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.56] by nm31.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun 2012 19:51:45 -0000 Received: from [68.142.200.226] by tm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun 2012 19:51:45 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.117] by t7.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun 2012 19:51:45 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1022.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun 2012 19:51:45 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 51659.1217.bm@omp1022.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 70351 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2012 19:51:44 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339530704; bh=W2A+ELjiRSrNwHJTmYn/hRigAX0bOIhN1zW7hzTliX4=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=niojt1uMEfyPohQcwNMvG2uI2rdaeOiixLm2xrpGW3auqjiZEFu7DTj+XIuxHpjVBOdhS239fEEyiDDIgEeMGJpb0O8vJBAkSur+vT7e8SSBhPQU6ECcXtOY0DTvEhCtkjeC2xRlKatmkAwISXAblXBjfwk8SwRGGaB6SN/TQa0= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 2989_TEVM1klfog0uI5gz9yx1rWUeptLAdGIvQ..fBmfoXd .gcYTqrg_iipYrNRJYgf0AmrvZmeEzl3o4vk24XUawhhkXYbjO9DMMOxCK37 3HFTJN.3UxYmEzfQSWhYm95M1Mqp0S1r_AKILV9UinosF_sY2nvO2I4CFtMH i3rl7qbrBGVnv_CkeP_e.9y_f3KZt4WZRg7nYLVHElPl5JEiRySLf9Gjollf XGnsfEtaVb3p4tw6ylvEGmu5INcyHAwnnMGZpNEeN4OB_IpUPh7KJaaCd.qR _0p8UZUU3.HsOyQ9te8wBv_MGrLPhj3SSEWXRg4brmQKwf5aVftmsdSYXwsH KRnKt2lnnVsHLqWkhQaIF2b7MbLqJKJoMJaZLmuaaSAccDKHw5wiQvaGTvF1 PC_mvU_XvoOHREDVOzGslXXLQB.GOXIVZJrs- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [172.16.1.120] (d.sturek@209.226.25.155 with login) by smtp108.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 2012 12:51:44 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:39 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson , <6lowpan@ietf.org>, , <6man@ietf.org> Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] LLN roadmap documents: more missing pieces In-Reply-To: <21763.1339529946@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [6lowpan] LLN roadmap documents: more missing pieces X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:51:50 -0000 Hi Michael, Don Sturek, chair for the ZigBee Core Stack working group (our group is standarding "ZigBee IP" which is a configured collection of IETF drafts supporting the Smart Energy Profile 2.0 over IEEE802.15.4) It is our group who are looking to standardize MLE (in your note below). That protocol provides the ability to share link quality information among one hop neighbors plus other information (eg, long addresses of neighbors) to allow for an intelligent neighbor selection for mesh routing (including ROLL RPL). Also, in your list below, we support 6LoWPAN ND (not just DAD), MLE, ROLL RPL (non-storing) among other IETF protocols for our solution. We discussed MLE within ZigBee IP and I was not clear on whether ROLL would be the right WG. For sure, I don't think 6LoWPAN is the right place since this protocol can work over mesh networks that are not necessarily employing 6LoWPAN. I think the options we discussed were ROLL and an Internet Area submission. Don On 6/12/12 12:39 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > >In a private (IM) chat between Carsten Bormann and I, we realized that >there >was prescious little consensus about what building blocks will be used >where. > >For instance, I have assumed that a ROLL RPL network would not need >the ND parts of 6lowpan-ND, only the DAD parts (if DAD was important). > >That ND was unnecessary in for RPL nodes as the DAOs and DIOs served the >same purpose. This surprised some others. What Carsten said was that >some kind of roadmap was necessary. > >In another hallway conversation at Paris, I came to understand that for >layer-2==Zigbee, that on Zigbee Controllers would ever need to run RPL, >and that the regular nodes (such as light switches, forgive me, I do not >recall their Zigbee name), would only communicate with a controller. > >This in contrast to what I know the home automation/P2P people are >doing. > >Finally, I wanted to bring your attention to > draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt > >which I'm told 6man is supposed to consider. >On some networks you can not send the DAOs or NDs out until you do this. > >I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan. > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > >_______________________________________________ >6lowpan mailing list >6lowpan@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Tue Jun 12 15:05:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C33821F8682 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:05:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id srLgszqwJiAX for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C5F21F8599 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so4532840ggn.31 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:05:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vN+lidV8E2iawvtAK9ISixmPsYpc7znmRAiitEgFtiE=; b=wS5k7lNe5OSYBXktd4OM9RodRAx3sLrYfZKaGhjgolBoJ9Tuf/GkMvL/22WqvFgbJo SLO+TOjB+80S1/KQ+wujpwgLzXvy6jzw46R+6xWIauTEZQyfBBo3z1sUdgctxAam2KBu pq8aYM4fM8sJvP8ElEPmGC2Njo2GfqwPmDXNlh419Yf2KmXufiklFqtI7dPkOFJFuZey +66AWKxdm/o+YBm/DEDyhjxOohGE/NA0taXUJcUZxSmuPtKZfHdnzRxwWzq5PFsTnGHi E3VlusN8FABlG/gnlwgre4SHWEUbn9lr3sKyl0Sn0jSaZrQ/1k+fBH/9xqy0cRwvlB9m uwXA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.6.229 with SMTP id e5mr9573772iga.9.1339538726658; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.118.210 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A21D218-A6AA-496A-9F86-2307748EE80A@sensinode.com> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> <4A21D218-A6AA-496A-9F86-2307748EE80A@sensinode.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:05:26 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Zach Shelby Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:05:28 -0000 On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Zach Shelby wrote: > +1 - I also would find this useful! And at least as a starting point this= is a solid I-D. > I also support this but add that Secure Neighbor Discovery draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-6lowpan-cgand-03 should also be adopted to complete 6lowpan ND yet to become RFC :-). Behcet > On Jun 12, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> >> I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as >> a WG item. =A0I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to >> discuss alternatives. >> >> Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC >> to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to >> make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >> speaking for myself >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> 6lowpan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > -- > Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. > http://www.sensinode.com > http://zachshelby.org =A0- My blog "On the Internet of Things" > http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet" > Mobile: +358 40 7796297 > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 05:46:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464ED21F8637; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:46:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EY8CQ2qIrPQK; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC6321F863B; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so326331vcq.31 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:46:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZFvmnonl8Dvz2PO/uRSUMJW+4kS2xLlmFRuh1Uwctno=; b=ogBPMgkvgNHtg/N4cLb+C0GjedPqERVIQMnsrEvGLFuWf4OecZgk0YLtgm0RGzxUVA 6EHalwYxsF4nIfXC2tpTV972g7aZVi1K8XnWPaVgDnMVoHYjKa701CTMo6LHNrESksIQ hSHXSMQ1/jezT5abWs1xMdcLPqFJcG6OOPfr+YQlF/WrVSmxoQ7+6YYZfJfaFzgULzJO bmRA/GmWIyb2qJxRWSGIlEG9+AGMNWmE6Az80oYLq4mcwKAknXoww1qMmdf4AQ7nSvJD l1Wnow/eCdAEPyg58EcMqJJ0Je/vlWxakaOtvVRFzyYOQxumyEna6q9GAGj4Vr34zhS8 VdYg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.94.36 with SMTP id cz4mr14303133vdb.10.1339591606090; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.98.77 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:46:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:46:46 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Michael Richardson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f3166d33ae904c259f9a3 Cc: roll@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:46:47 -0000 --20cf307f3166d33ae904c259f9a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +1 AB On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as > a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to > discuss alternatives. > > Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC > to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to > make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > speaking for myself > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > --20cf307f3166d33ae904c259f9a3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=A0

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Michael Richard= son <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

I would like to propose that draf= t-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as
a WG item. =A0I think that 6lowpa= n should adopt it, but I'm willing to
discuss alternatives.

Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modes= t application of GHC
to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient= compression to
make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15= .4 payload.

--
Michael Richardson= <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca&g= t;, Sandelman Software Works
speaking for myself

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
= 6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ie= tf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

--20cf307f3166d33ae904c259f9a3-- From daniel.gavelle@nxp.com Wed Jun 13 06:17:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94E221F8518; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:17:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wvBHg9T7JH8s; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from be1ssnxpe2.nxp.com (be1ssnxpe2.nxp.com [57.67.164.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F65521F860F; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EU1RDCRDC1VW025.exi.nxp.com ([134.27.176.170]) by be1ssnxpe2.nxp.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5DDH5hx000737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:17:05 +0200 Received: from eu1rdcrdc1wx032.exi.nxp.com ([134.27.179.186]) by EU1RDCRDC1VW025.exi.nxp.com ([134.27.176.170]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:17:05 +0200 From: Daniel Gavelle To: Michael Richardson Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:17:04 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc Thread-Index: Ac1JYpq6BuGyOPawTQuWZi/fesx2DQABCiIg Message-ID: <927C66C0775CCA43B88EB1E3006614B316E5DD87@eu1rdcrdc1wx032.exi.nxp.com> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_927C66C0775CCA43B88EB1E3006614B316E5DD87eu1rdcrdc1wx032_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "roll@ietf.org" , "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:17:10 -0000 --_000_927C66C0775CCA43B88EB1E3006614B316E5DD87eu1rdcrdc1wx032_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 __________________________________________________ Daniel Gavelle, Software Team Leader Low Power RF Solutions (formerly Jennic Ltd.) NXP Semiconductors Furnival Street, Sheffield, S1 4QT, UK Tel: +44 114 281 2655 Fax: +44 114 281 2951 Comp Reg No: 3191371 - Registered In England http://www.nxp.com http://www.jennic.com __________________________________________________ From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abd= ussalam Baryun Sent: 13 June 2012 13:47 To: Michael Richardson Cc: roll@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc +1 AB On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to discuss alternatives. Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. -- Michael Richardson >,= Sandelman Software Works speaking for myself _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan --_000_927C66C0775CCA43B88EB1E3006614B316E5DD87eu1rdcrdc1wx032_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

_________________________= _________________________

Daniel Gavelle, Software Team Leader

Low Power RF Solutions (formerly Jennic Ltd.)

NXP Semiconductors Furnival Street, =

Sheffield,

S1 4Q= T, UK

Tel: +44 114 281 2655

Fax: +44 114 281 2951

Comp Reg No: 3191371 - Registered In England

http://www.nxp.com http://www.jennic.com

__________________________________________________

From: ro= ll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdu= ssalam Baryun
Sent: 13 June 2012 13:47
To: Michael Rich= ardson
Cc: roll@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: Re:= [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca<= /a>> wrote:

I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adop= ted as
a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm wi= lling to
discuss alternatives.

Some analysis in 2011 showed that = even a modest application of GHC
to ROLL RPL control messages resulted i= n sufficient compression to
make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a s= ingle 802.15.4 payload.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman So= ftware Works
speaking for myself
<= br>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan ma= iling list
6lowpan@ietf.org
<= a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan" target=3D"_blank">= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

= --_000_927C66C0775CCA43B88EB1E3006614B316E5DD87eu1rdcrdc1wx032_-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 06:18:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2122821F863B; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qTZ74X55YNwX; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0968921F8610; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so345989vcq.31 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=J6m1Ds8JEbRcuJ8d879X3N5LU9WaBYrmLnOadsrUndU=; b=vLNFQEMvdC5UpD/BIdbHlmyTY6dwU7SUoj8vXYWR6RYyEuk5ivOYuqAWyiTdLfFB8y 1p0cQBxRhoXuF5D+rYUrOZFYWuFBwkFuYgSoD0bWBhYLeq0tYB4XnvdlIwPWUurO1h0s GT3FsTjzHRWRVJARJ8PumFZ0c+KHoxfky/HdMKE5ET0Hs/Q1zSvf39Te6yfTrc3v/0i8 H4qpbCHaNu5oTPY0zO40Nrxo4fp/t2fiLY4wCPyIsGEtPteGeaHpIs9kbOxobq2jwwMs DxPciQOIv5JU2fJy6kpOW0tXlXLghgXsK3ezH908/eYC2FaRH8IB0N6JB9OX2YS0DKwj oSkg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.33.37 with SMTP id o5mr14118018vdi.86.1339593515469; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.98.77 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <21763.1339529946@marajade.sandelman.ca> References: <21763.1339529946@marajade.sandelman.ca> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:18:35 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Michael Richardson , Don Sturek Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307ac163a20b2604c25a6b5f Cc: roll@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] LLN roadmap documents: more missing pieces X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:18:37 -0000 --20cf307ac163a20b2604c25a6b5f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Michael, Don, and all, >What Carsten said was that some kind of roadmap was necessary. I agree with Mr.Carsten, >I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan. IMHO, it belongs to 6lowpan WG first, and it MAY be for ROLL as well, overall, I think the WG AD can give us the best feedback and suggestion. >For sure, I don't think 6LoWPAN is the right >place since this protocol can work over mesh networks >that are not necessarily employing 6LoWPAN. if the protocol can work else than 6LoWPAN, then IMHO we should let each group face its use-case problems, not to give a protocol that works in many conditions to only one WG or two. Each WG SHOULD look at its purpose case for any particular protocol (as needed to be used is such area). >the ZigBee Core Stack working group I am looking for the group, but not found, this group is not an IETF group yet ! I don't see the IETF has a cooperation with Zigbee standards. If I am mistaken please inform me, IMO we should not depend on the Zigbee-WG, until it becomes IETF WG, Therefore, the work you pointed to, should be considered by both 6LoWPAN and ROLL. Regards Abdussalam Baryun, University of Glaorgan, UK. =============================================== On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > In a private (IM) chat between Carsten Bormann and I, we realized that > there > was prescious little consensus about what building blocks will be used > where. > > For instance, I have assumed that a ROLL RPL network would not need > the ND parts of 6lowpan-ND, only the DAD parts (if DAD was important). > > That ND was unnecessary in for RPL nodes as the DAOs and DIOs served the > same purpose. This surprised some others. What Carsten said was that > some kind of roadmap was necessary. > > In another hallway conversation at Paris, I came to understand that for > layer-2==Zigbee, that on Zigbee Controllers would ever need to run RPL, > and that the regular nodes (such as light switches, forgive me, I do not > recall their Zigbee name), would only communicate with a controller. > > This in contrast to what I know the home automation/P2P people are > doing. > > Finally, I wanted to bring your attention to > draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt > > which I'm told 6man is supposed to consider. > On some networks you can not send the DAOs or NDs out until you do this. > > I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan. > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > --20cf307ac163a20b2604c25a6b5f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Michael,=A0Don, and all,

=A0

>What Carsten said was that some kind of roadmap was necessary.
=

I agree with Mr.Carsten,

=A0

>I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan.

IMHO, it belongs to=A06lowpan WG first, and it=A0MAY be for ROLL as well,<= /font>

overall, I think the WG AD can give us the best= feedback and suggestion.

=A0

>For sure, I don't think 6LoWPAN is the right<= /div>

>place since this protocol can work over mesh networks

>that are not necessarily employing 6LoWPAN.

=A0

if the protocol can work else than 6LoWPAN, then

IMHO we should let each group face its use-case problems,

not to give a protocol that works in many condi= tions to

only one WG or two. Each WG SHOULD look at its = purpose case

for any particular protocol (as needed to be us= ed is such area).

=A0

>the ZigBee Core Stack working group<= /div>

=A0

I am looking for the group, but not found,

this group is not an IETF group yet=A0!<= /div>

=A0

I don't see the IETF has a cooperation=A0with Zigbee standards. If I a= m mistaken

please inform me, IMO we should not depend o= n the Zigbee-WG, until it becomes IETF WG,

=A0

Therefore,=A0the work you pointed to, should be= considered by both 6LoWPAN and ROLL.

= =A0

= Regards

= =A0

= Abdussalam Baryun,
Unive= rsity of Glaorgan, UK.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=A0

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Michael Richard= son <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

In a private (IM) chat between Ca= rsten Bormann and I, we realized that there
was prescious little consens= us about what building blocks will be used
where.

For instance, I have assumed that a ROLL RPL network would no= t need
the ND parts of 6lowpan-ND, only the DAD parts (if DAD was import= ant).

That ND was unnecessary in for RPL nodes as the DAOs and DIOs = served the
same purpose. =A0This surprised some others. =A0What Carsten said was that<= br>some kind of roadmap was necessary.

In another hallway conversati= on at Paris, I came to understand that for
layer-2=3D=3DZigbee, that on = Zigbee Controllers would ever need to run RPL,
and that the regular nodes (such as light switches, forgive me, I do notrecall their Zigbee name), would only communicate with a controller.
This in contrast to what I know the home automation/P2P people are
doing.

Finally, I wanted to bring your attention to
=A0draft-kels= ey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt

which I'm told 6man is= supposed to consider.
On some networks you can not send the DAOs or NDs= out until you do this.

I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Softwa= re Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair. =A0 =A0http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/<= /a>

______________________________________________= _
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.or= g
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

--20cf307ac163a20b2604c25a6b5f-- From m.pouillot@watteco.com Wed Jun 13 08:32:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D078B21F866C; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:32:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FuZGaVMf3vEs; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A49B21F8657; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail141-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.254) by VA3EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (10.7.40.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:31:04 +0000 Received: from mail141-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail141-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BC82C05B2; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:29:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.252.37; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:DB3PRD0510HT004.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -23 X-BigFish: VPS-23(zz98dI9371Ic89bhc85dh1418Izz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah) Received: from mail141-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail141-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1339601376121709_6754; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from VA3EHSMHS026.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.249]) by mail141-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172A18004B; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3PRD0510HT004.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.252.37) by VA3EHSMHS026.bigfish.com (10.7.99.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:29:35 +0000 Received: from DB3PRD0510MB393.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.56]) by DB3PRD0510HT004.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.46.39]) with mapi id 14.16.0164.004; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:30:34 +0000 From: M Pouillot To: Daniel Gavelle , Michael Richardson Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc Thread-Index: AQHNSWbkOM3FYsvI3EyqzrbkpWsaFpb4YAAg Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:30:33 +0000 Message-ID: <1D0972C5226A7649BBB5E3734FCD593DA20702@DB3PRD0510MB393.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> <927C66C0775CCA43B88EB1E3006614B316E5DD87@eu1rdcrdc1wx032.exi.nxp.com> In-Reply-To: <927C66C0775CCA43B88EB1E3006614B316E5DD87@eu1rdcrdc1wx032.exi.nxp.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.3.48.34] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1D0972C5226A7649BBB5E3734FCD593DA20702DB3PRD0510MB393eu_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: watteco.com Cc: "roll@ietf.org" , "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:32:12 -0000 --_000_1D0972C5226A7649BBB5E3734FCD593DA20702DB3PRD0510MB393eu_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 De : 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] De la part = de Daniel Gavelle Envoy=E9 : mercredi 13 juin 2012 15:17 =C0 : Michael Richardson Cc : roll@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org Objet : Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc +1 __________________________________________________ Daniel Gavelle, Software Team Leader Low Power RF Solutions (formerly Jennic Ltd.) NXP Semiconductors Furnival Street, Sheffield, S1 4QT, UK Tel: +44 114 281 2655 Fax: +44 114 281 2951 Comp Reg No: 3191371 - Registered In England http://www.nxp.com http://www.jennic.com __________________________________________________ From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-boun= ces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussala= m Baryun Sent: 13 June 2012 13:47 To: Michael Richardson Cc: roll@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc +1 AB On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to discuss alternatives. Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. -- Michael Richardson >,= Sandelman Software Works speaking for myself _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan --_000_1D0972C5226A7649BBB5E3734FCD593DA20702DB3PRD0510MB393eu_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1<= /p>

<= /p>

De : 6low= pan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Daniel Gavelle
Envoy=E9 : mercredi 13 juin 2012 15:17
=C0 : Michael Richardson
Cc : roll@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc

= ;

__________________________________________________

Daniel Gavelle, Software Team Leader

Low Power RF Solutions (formerly Jennic Ltd.)

NXP Semiconductors Furnival Street,

Sheffield,

S1 4QT, UK

Tel: +44 114 281 2655

Fax: +44 114 281 2951

Comp Reg No: 3191371 - Registered In England

http://www.nxp.com http://www.jennic.com

__________________________________________________

= ;

From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun Sent: 13 June 2012 13:47
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: roll@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc

= AB

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM= , Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

=
I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as
a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to discuss alternatives.

Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC
to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to
make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
speaking for myself

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

--_000_1D0972C5226A7649BBB5E3734FCD593DA20702DB3PRD0510MB393eu_-- From pthubert_cisco@yahoo.fr Wed Jun 13 16:58:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05AA11E8094 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:58:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4vMR0hdoQkLd for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm20-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm20-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C98411E807F for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.64] by nm20.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jun 2012 23:58:42 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.56] by tm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jun 2012 23:58:42 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1056.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jun 2012 23:58:42 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 894712.2257.bm@omp1056.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 15086 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2012 23:58:42 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.fr; h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Message-Id:Cc:X-Mailer:From:Subject:Date:To; b=Nr6GMsDHjyrzOmjN42gTc9NFCh2GH0rS8Ih8AKByliMj/djgOHq7cvS17bBvb7d+40HBe18wW9JW4Vz2FdsER525U+DWXYK8LjgQi76VKyZOgSqljIibAlOVPwJ4qDO90Q33dB/dRmCSMfML4d+/xvK7CjTme+noUHTE7ZdFusk= ; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.fr; s=s1024; t=1339631922; bh=A1cjCqME9h9ifiYY1t/7znC3LO1wk7WYq10N/oAA13I=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Message-Id:Cc:X-Mailer:From:Subject:Date:To; b=IlUvBS9QHazbGTR3o1W8enilkGGThPliF2+NIZA9bsnXnrJ/BJn41Y5Jd3VwxhWiaZf0aEKM9dG6P+RBk0IGWIxIDxlU6aIlYrHBgMipRLpWMomV8Y8X9WUlPWoQ2wLDugoup5ZgDAEby2bRyQ3wLgWQzGjq/B40lCYeyifIPMo= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: Rbr7BocVM1kereo3K.RK.Xso2GN3LAMENb5pSZI02oIwa9a bptLvUVvQ0Q61bjZjbH7Qcz730p.GzcI20TtIQRnGNwiX01dN0L7KSy34z1z FVOCn7w3jjC4yrd9LLaeYBBmjCzEHhFF7HilXW2BONlQZqNoqB8megMjvvzc HllA3PEd.ojXWrL0Y8blgJc8UTGaWnxHaSlJAiVnoGEbIxNaqBmKuC6ni5dK tKcRYa3GxT1KssRe2VOYabmP.Jis3xl8fEJwDktlmNV5tljI3CddEJnTxbXW v6mqLROZWaGSD09.lJqOx8SOX8olpGeFeLJyYEmqrLd9nz6_LGUryK4myxgG mHx9KGF26ir7RimNx0CTnY_ltMNDbabA9t7HUICpTCTBUejUc9zp0DWZ7GuP CYbKlfwssGkeuRVPj8EXsO5mp6vPC7_1vr_juoumSdA3iINrQNQ-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: 4yMEliGswBAasvpyZFHmebLo1Uyca4YzEGiW Received: from [10.211.10.141] (pthubert_cisco@63.231.216.50 with xymcookie) by smtp108-mob.biz.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jun 2012 16:58:41 -0700 PDT References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B208) From: Pascal Thubert Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:55:00 -0700 To: Michael Richardson X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:06:43 -0700 Cc: "roll@ietf.org" , "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:58:49 -0000 +1 Pascal Le 12 juin 2012 =C3=A0 12:28, Michael Richardson a =C3= =A9crit : >=20 > I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as > a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to > discuss alternatives. >=20 > Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC > to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to > make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. >=20 > --=20 > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 > speaking for myself >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From Laurent.Toutain@telecom-bretagne.eu Thu Jun 14 00:31:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D440F21F8421; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:31:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.742 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W36gL6BeqM25; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.115.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9338621F8643; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2009.11.10) with ESMTP id q5E7VVmY025726; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:31:31 +0200 Received: from courrier.enst-bretagne.fr (vss-mail-02.priv.enst-bretagne.fr [10.29.90.4]) by coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2009.11.10) with ESMTP id q5E7VRM3025712; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:31:30 +0200 Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (passerelle-interne.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.117.210]) (user=toutain mech=PLAIN bits=0) by courrier.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/2010.02.22) with ESMTP id q5E7VOk6020037; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:31:24 +0200 Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so979126wgb.13 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.209.95 with SMTP id r73mr432961weo.157.1339659084411; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:31:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.156.81 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:31:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> From: Laurent Toutain Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:31:03 +0200 Message-ID: To: Pascal Thubert Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6db2371d8b24904c269af3e X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at enst-bretagne.fr Cc: Michael Richardson , "roll@ietf.org" , "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:31:35 -0000 --0016e6db2371d8b24904c269af3e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1, but I thought the 6LP working group was closed ! Laurent On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Pascal Thubert wr= ote: > +1 > > Pascal > > Le 12 juin 2012 =E0 12:28, Michael Richardson a > =E9crit : > > > > > I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as > > a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to > > discuss alternatives. > > > > Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC > > to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to > > make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. > > > > -- > > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > > speaking for myself > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Roll mailing list > > Roll@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > --=20 Laurent Toutain +--- VoIP (recommended) ---+----------- T=E9l=E9com Bretagne -----------+ | Tel: +33 2 22 06 8156 | Tel: + 33 2 99 12 7026 | Visit : | Fax: +33 2 22 06 8445 | Fax: +33 2 99 12 7030 | http://class.touta.in | Laurent@Touta.in | Laurent.Toutain@Telecom-Bretagne.eu | +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+ --0016e6db2371d8b24904c269af3e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1, but I thought the 6LP working group was closed !

Lau= rent

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Pas= cal Thubert <pthubert_cisco@yahoo.fr> wrote:

+1

Pascal

Le 12 juin 2012 =E0 12:28, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> a =E9crit :

>
> I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted a= s
> a WG item. =A0I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willin= g to
> discuss alternatives.
>
> Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC
> to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to
> make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. >
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+= IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> speaking for myself
>
> _______________________________________________

> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

--
Laurent Tout= ain
+--- VoIP (recommend= ed) ---+----------- T=E9l=E9com Bretagne -----------+
| Tel: +33 2 22 06= 8156 =A0 =A0| Tel: + 33 2 99 12 7026 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | Vis= it :
| Fax: +33 2 22 06 8445 =A0 =A0| Fax: +33 2 99 12 7030 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0htt= p://class.touta.in
| Laurent@Touta.in =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | Laurent.Tout= ain@Telecom-Bretagne.eu =A0 =A0|
+--------------------------+----------------------------------------+

--0016e6db2371d8b24904c269af3e-- From c.chauvenet@watteco.com Thu Jun 14 02:54:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BB721F865F; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:54:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4oPGleqS4WGF; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED6B21F8663; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail79-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.248) by CH1EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (10.43.70.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:53:33 +0000 Received: from mail79-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail79-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF206340381; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:53:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.252.165; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:DBXPRD0510HT001.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -22 X-BigFish: VPS-22(zzc89bh1432I1418Izz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839hd25he5bhf0ah) Received: from mail79-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail79-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 133966761195116_19736; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:53:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS002.bigfish.com (snatpool2.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.235]) by mail79-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1518548004B; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:53:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DBXPRD0510HT001.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.252.165) by CH1EHSMHS002.bigfish.com (10.43.70.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:53:31 +0000 Received: from DBXPRD0510MB395.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.7.190]) by DBXPRD0510HT001.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.67.164]) with mapi id 14.16.0164.004; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:54:26 +0000 From: C Chauvenet To: Michael Richardson Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc Thread-Index: AQHNSNGKk5/9ArAtu0iqaj4aC4qUwJb5lbKA Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:54:26 +0000 Message-ID: <3BCA1630-9983-4068-BEC8-3F8D979AD1CD@watteco.com> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.3.4.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <2D4FBC1A33AC444CA5D84A7F1EEF67EA@eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: watteco.com Cc: "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:54:42 -0000 +1 to adopt this doc as a WG item. Saving bytes is the key.=20 Go for it ! Le 12 juin 2012 =E0 21:28, Michael Richardson a =E9crit : >=20 > I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as > a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to > discuss alternatives. >=20 > Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC > to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to > make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. >=20 > --=20 > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 > speaking for myself >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From cabo@tzi.org Thu Jun 14 03:19:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E674D21F86C2; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:19:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.900, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FwYLlgj7zRn9; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA6721F86C1; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:19:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5EAJFsu026400; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:19:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54899DA7.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.157.167]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C30F0FA1; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:19:14 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:19:13 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <87AC724B-DC1F-41C2-9F1F-4357FA7B45A3@tzi.org> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca>

To: Laurent Toutain X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: roll WG , 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:19:25 -0000 On Jun 14, 2012, at 09:31, Laurent Toutain wrote: > but I thought the 6LP working group was closed ...>>>>>... Changing to WG chair mode for a moment: The 6LoWPAN WG is alive and well and is in the process of closing its = remaining two work items (6LoWPAN-ND, 6LoWPAN for BTLE). However, you are right in that the 6LoWPAN WG no longer takes new work = on. The chairs, with the ADs and the chairs of other WGs, will ensure that = interesting work finds an appropriate home. Indicating whether you are interested in GHC is therefore important = input. Another comment: Beyond the +1s, it would be useful to know, whether you (I'm addressing = the WG here) would be interested in -- reviewing versions of the draft as they progress -- implementing the draft and relaying feedback. ...<<<<<... I'm back to personal contributor mode now. (Luckily, we won't have this hat-changing going on any more when we find = the new home.) I'm just in the process of receiving some more packet captures. I would like to take this opportunity to remind people that the more = packet captures we have to look at, the better we will be able to = optimize this scheme before nailing it down. A collection of packets I looked at is in http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/6lowpan/packets (and, of course, there is the discussion of these in the draft itself). Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From esko.dijk@philips.com Thu Jun 14 03:55:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34E5921F865D for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:55:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hE4WVqnc06Uw for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (db3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15E821F8562 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail79-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.250) by DB3EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (10.3.84.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:39:23 +0000 Received: from mail79-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail79-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614301807E9 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:39:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.7.222; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:mail.philips.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -20 X-BigFish: VPS-20(zz217bL98dI15d6O9371I9251Jc89bhc85dh1432I1418Id060iizz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah) Received: from mail79-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail79-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1339663160868328_2976; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:39:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.244]) by mail79-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C883C4C004A for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:39:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.philips.com (157.55.7.222) by DB3EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (10.3.87.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:39:20 +0000 Received: from 011-DB3MPN2-081.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([169.254.1.197]) by 011-DB3MMR1-010.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([10.128.28.49]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.003; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:40:26 +0100 From: "Dijk, Esko" To: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc Thread-Index: AQHNScEBSpa8h+NS8kSXuj+sDuxKI5b5WwiAgAAjk0A= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:40:25 +0000 Message-ID: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618A92DCC@011-DB3MPN2-081.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca>

In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [194.171.252.101] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618A92DCC011DB3MPN2081MGDP_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: philips.com Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:55:59 -0000 --_000_031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618A92DCC011DB3MPN2081MGDP_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable An official statement of the WG being closed or not would be nice! In my perception the 6lowpan WG continues, only without any official meetin= gs. Esko From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Laurent Toutain Sent: Thursday 14 June 2012 9:31 To: Pascal Thubert Cc: Michael Richardson; roll@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc +1, but I thought the 6LP working group was closed ! Laurent On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Pascal Thubert > wrote: +1 Pascal Le 12 juin 2012 =E0 12:28, Michael Richardson > a =E9crit : > > I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as > a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to > discuss alternatives. > > Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC > to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to > make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. > > -- > Michael Richardson = >, Sandelman Software Works > speaking for myself > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll -- Laurent Toutain +--- VoIP (recommended) ---+----------- T=E9l=E9com Bretagne -----------+ | Tel: +33 2 22 06 8156 | Tel: + 33 2 99 12 7026 | Visit= : | Fax: +33 2 22 06 8445 | Fax: +33 2 99 12 7030 | http= ://class.touta.in | Laurent@Touta.in | Laurent.Toutain@Telecom-Bretagne.eu | +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+ ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally p= rotected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addre= ssee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified tha= t any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is st= rictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipien= t, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the= original message. --_000_031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618A92DCC011DB3MPN2081MGDP_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

An official statement o= f the WG being closed or not would be nice!

In my perception the 6l= owpan WG continues, only without any official meetings.

Esko

From: 6lowpa= n-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Laurent Toutain
Sent: Thursday 14 June 2012 9:31
To: Pascal Thubert
Cc: Michael Richardson; roll@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc

+1, but I thought the 6LP working group was clos= ed !

Laurent

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Pascal Thubert <= pthubert_cisco= @yahoo.fr> wrote:

+1

Pascal

Le 12 juin 2012 =E0 12:28, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> a =E9crit :

>
> I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted a= s
> a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing= to
> discuss alternatives.
>
> Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC
> to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to
> make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. >
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr&= #43;IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> speaking for myself
>
> _______________________________________________

> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

--
Laurent Toutain
+--- VoIP (recommen= ded) ---+----------- T=E9l=E9com Bretagne -----------+
| Tel: +33 2 22 06 8156 | Tel: + 33 2 99 12 7026 = ; | Visit :
| Fax: +33 2 22 06 8445 | Fax: +33 2 99 12 7030 = | http://class.touta.in
| Laurent@Touta.in | Laurent.Toutain@Telecom-Br= etagne.eu |
+--------------------------+---------------------------------------= -+

The information contained in= this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable la= w. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the = intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message i= s strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended reci= pient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of= the original message.
--_000_031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618A92DCC011DB3MPN2081MGDP_-- From cabo@tzi.org Thu Jun 14 04:00:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2E221F8644 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:00:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x7wvX712iESq for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0E621F85D4 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:00:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5EAxuTS024197; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:59:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54899DA7.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.157.167]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89E8AFF0; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:59:56 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618A92DCC@011-DB3MPN2-081.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:59:55 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca>

<031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618A92DCC@011-DB3MPN2-081.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> To: "Dijk, Esko" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:00:07 -0000 On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:40, Dijk, Esko wrote: > An official statement of the WG being closed or not would be nice! > In my perception the 6lowpan WG continues, only without any official = meetings. Hi Esko, I think our messages just crossed -- see = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan/current/msg03544.html Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Thu Jun 14 04:10:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE68621F868A for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:10:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1CBuY6JwQzT for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F353321F867D for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so1115062vbb.31 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:10:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mB7nUz+Ig2Q0GFaZ/sq7lI2Rb5Y6b+jphcWVFqKTD+U=; b=sPplQe8pqIQ4qgc29jTragkSk8z+cuqJpnQfFFH/6J9qUs0w9kGhyLFK4tpFVqii+S SEz4L36bQAjL5VMuoZ9wkH3lZdufubNyrnNEpOxHibwXgSpvElzphdFPqoudUgDGiErf wCm0bVpjTCeHxlc5ZHelOUSEruLua69djf5TB4iobbtByT11dyyITcbqOSECCzfW096a +AdqEHGwKbB2DDYw+zCgtGvKmSy+wOXc30CphtN/+FL+M6MT8CXRdCdaTYbNlYteifRg FoB208jSoR3vqRkzN+1eXIN4FAPGvCisqitb3gwDSUmL8c97zBv07WZUH4vyKXVjUpku Me0A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.65.145 with SMTP id x17mr643809vds.117.1339672218416; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.211.72 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:10:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87AC724B-DC1F-41C2-9F1F-4357FA7B45A3@tzi.org> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca>

<87AC724B-DC1F-41C2-9F1F-4357FA7B45A3@tzi.org> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:10:17 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5015d5db1b78104c26cbe64 Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:10:20 -0000 --bcaec5015d5db1b78104c26cbe64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Carsten, and All, >+1, but I thought the 6LP working group was closed ! were there an announcement for close in the discussion list? I didn't find it ! were there a good reason for such close? no clue ! >The 6LoWPAN WG is alive and well and is in the process of closing > its remaining two work items (6LoWPAN-ND, 6LoWPAN for BTLE). >However, you are right in that the 6LoWPAN WG no longer takes new work on. I don't know how the WG will not take new items while it is still working. The IETF WGs are alive only when they have both input and output. If a WG only has output then in some day it will be closed, but if a WG has input without output that means it is not performing well ;) >The chairs, with the ADs and the chairs of other WGs, will ensure that interesting work finds an appropriate home. Yes it is ok to organise where items go, but why blocking items to come in this WG. I thought it was the decision of the WG to decide if they take in new items or not, not others. IMHO, the chairs organise/guide the process and WG makes decisions. Please advise, because I don't understand your input even after reading the IETF procedures and best practices, Regards AB =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Jun 14, 2012, at 09:31, Laurent Toutain wrote: > > > but I thought the 6LP working group was closed > > ...>>>>>... > Changing to WG chair mode for a moment: > > The 6LoWPAN WG is alive and well and is in the process of closing its > remaining two work items (6LoWPAN-ND, 6LoWPAN for BTLE). > > However, you are right in that the 6LoWPAN WG no longer takes new work on= . > The chairs, with the ADs and the chairs of other WGs, will ensure that > interesting work finds an appropriate home. > > Indicating whether you are interested in GHC is therefore important input= . > > Another comment: > Beyond the +1s, it would be useful to know, whether you (I'm addressing > the WG here) would be interested in > > -- reviewing versions of the draft as they progress > -- implementing the draft and relaying feedback. > > ...<<<<<... > I'm back to personal contributor mode now. > > (Luckily, we won't have this hat-changing going on any more when we find > the new home.) > > I'm just in the process of receiving some more packet captures. > I would like to take this opportunity to remind people that the more > packet captures we have to look at, the better we will be able to optimiz= e > this scheme before nailing it down. > > A collection of packets I looked at is in > > http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/6lowpan/packets > > (and, of course, there is the discussion of these in the draft itself). > > Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > --bcaec5015d5db1b78104c26cbe64 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Carsten, and All,

=A0

>+1, but I thought the= 6LP working group was closed !

=A0

were there an=A0ann= ouncement for close in the discussion list? I didn't find it !

were there a good reason for such close? no clue !

=A0

>The 6LoWPAN WG is alive and well and is in the proce= ss of closing

>=A0its remaining two work items (6LoWPAN-ND, 6L= oWPAN for BTLE).

>However, you are right in that the 6LoWP= AN WG no longer takes new work on.

I don't know how the WG will not take new items while it is = still working. The IETF WGs are alive only when they have both input and ou= tput. If a WG only=A0has output then in some day it will be=A0closed, but i= f a WG has input without output that means it is not performing well ;)=A0<= /div>

=A0

>The chairs, with the ADs and the chairs of other WGs= , will ensure that interesting work finds an appropriate home.

Yes it is ok to organise where items go, but why blocking items to come i= n this WG. I thought it was the decision of the WG to decide if they take i= n new items or not, not others. IMHO, the chairs organise/guide the process= and WG makes decisions. Please advise, because I don't understand your= input even=A0after reading the IETF procedures and best practices,

=A0

Regards

=A0

=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org&= gt; wrote:

On Jun 14, 2012, at 09:31, Laurent Touta= in wrote:

> but I thought the 6LP working group was closed

...>>>>>...
Changing to WG chair mode for a moment:

The 6LoWPAN WG is alive and well and is in the process of closing its remai= ning two work items (6LoWPAN-ND, 6LoWPAN for BTLE).

However, you are right in that the 6LoWPAN WG no longer takes new work on.<= br> The chairs, with the ADs and the chairs of other WGs, will ensure that inte= resting work finds an appropriate home.

Indicating whether you are interested in GHC is therefore important input.<= br>
Another comment:
Beyond the +1s, it would be useful to know, whether you (I'm addressing= the WG here) would be interested in

-- reviewing versions of the draft as they progress
-- implementing the draft and relaying feedback.

...<<<<<...
I'm back to personal contributor mode now.

(Luckily, we won't have this hat-changing going on any more when we fin= d the new home.)

I'm just in the process of receiving some more packet captures.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind people that the more packet= captures we have to look at, the better we will be able to optimize this s= cheme before nailing it down.

A collection of packets I looked at is in

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/6lowpan/packets
(and, of course, there is the discussion of these in the draft itself).

Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

--bcaec5015d5db1b78104c26cbe64-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Thu Jun 14 04:16:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F7421F869F for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:16:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wdiozzDm3WTi for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0318621F86A7 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so1030715vcq.31 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:16:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=lBx5xvMvWECe7XrAyrhzcbLBkJPk/XacZCWWmgUSqJQ=; b=F17gGQ8xXLyaZFtQFMppu23NWDbMW94KSY2hvzfvtmDTcsBRkWjOLo3pQmva29eQAe 4x86RmWp9IHEWsVhSquzKrwD1sqkAy59stqK/IwJQFEs2vA7QlUA+KhLHzL1gLhxZIRX mWMNeOpJ75uCGvgiqv1cBX6xkuz6IZeJQbXRdUqxdJVmrxDeSgdqitppjKZVeeOs9jdc wMLT0PHWFJ5iwpGbQAw2VkRVDaQkNUkw855JQWlQHz/82oW7DK+rLcTVgOseCeTEtiUn 4mGZr1iktaW21ECN5JvP2WLG8KXUEUGadCxmgV1gLXuvE4lQw8ZEYMl9ZR4ArEdqlydL aHGA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.94.36 with SMTP id cz4mr708605vdb.10.1339672574227; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.211.72 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:16:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618A92DCC@011-DB3MPN2-081.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca>

<031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618A92DCC@011-DB3MPN2-081.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:16:14 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "Dijk, Esko" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f3166e6f62f04c26cd3a6 Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:16:18 -0000 --20cf307f3166e6f62f04c26cd3a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Dijk, +1 I also think the memebrs are only authorised to decide if cotinue or not, if there was no good reason announced ;) AB On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Dijk, Esko wrote: > An official statement of the WG being closed or not would be nice! > > In my perception the 6lowpan WG continues, only without any official > meetings. > > > > Esko > > > > *From:* 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] *On > Behalf Of *Laurent Toutain > *Sent:* Thursday 14 June 2012 9:31 > *To:* Pascal Thubert > *Cc:* Michael Richardson; roll@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc > > > > +1, but I thought the 6LP working group was closed ! > > > > Laurent > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Pascal Thubert > wrote: > > +1 > > Pascal > > Le 12 juin 2012 =E0 12:28, Michael Richardson a > =E9crit : > > > > > > I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted as > > a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willing to > > discuss alternatives. > > > > Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC > > to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to > > make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. > > > > -- > > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > > speaking for myself > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Roll mailing list > > Roll@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > > > > > -- > Laurent Toutain > +--- VoIP (recommended) ---+----------- T=E9l=E9com Bretagne -----------+ > | Tel: +33 2 22 06 8156 | Tel: + 33 2 99 12 7026 | > Visit : > | Fax: +33 2 22 06 8445 | Fax: +33 2 99 12 7030 | > http://class.touta.in > | Laurent@Touta.in | Laurent.Toutain@Telecom-Bretagne.eu | > +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+ > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destro= y > all copies of the original message. > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > --20cf307f3166e6f62f04c26cd3a6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Dijk,

=A0

I also thi= nk the memebrs are only authorised to decide if cotinue or not,

i= f there was no good reason announced ;)

=A0

AB

<= /div>

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Dijk, Esko <esko.dijk@philips.com> wrote:

An official statemen= t of the WG being closed or not would be nice!

In my perception the= 6lowpan WG continues, only without any official meetings.

=A0

Esko

=A0

From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org<= /a> [mailto:6= lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Laurent Toutain
Sent: Thursday 14 June 2012 9:31
To: Pascal Thubert
Cc: Michael Richardson; roll@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc

=A0

+1, but I thought the 6LP working group was closed !=

=A0

Laurent

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Pascal Thubert <= pthubert_cisco= @yahoo.fr> wrote:

+1

Pascal

Le 12 juin 2012 =E0 12:28, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> a =E9crit= :

>
> I would like to propose that draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04 be adopted a= s
> a WG item. =A0I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, but I'm willin= g to
> discuss alternatives.
>
> Some analysis in 2011 showed that even a modest application of GHC
> to ROLL RPL control messages resulted in sufficient compression to
> make ROLL RPL packets regularly fit into a single 802.15.4 payload. >
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> speaking for myself
>
> _______________________________________________

> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

=A0

--
Laurent Toutain
+--- VoIP (recommended)= ---+----------- T=E9l=E9com Bretagne -----------+
| Tel: +33 2 22 06 8156 =A0 =A0| Tel: + 33 2 99 = 12 7026 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | Visit :
| Fax: +33 2 22 06 8445 =A0 =A0| Fax: +33 2 99 12 7= 030 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0http://class.touta.in
| Laurent@Touta.in =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | Laurent.Toutain@Telecom-Bretagne.eu = =A0 =A0|
+--------------------------+----------------------------------------+

The information contained in= this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable la= w. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the = intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message i= s strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended reci= pient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of= the original message.

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

--20cf307f3166e6f62f04c26cd3a6-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jun 14 06:43:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278FD21F86AF; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:43:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.135 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.819, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EnweJEDq55DT; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9459921F86AD; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:43:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72A7282DC; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id D6C5098C2E; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:43:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D250898C2D; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:43:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Laurent Toutain In-Reply-To: References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca>

X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:43:13 -0400 Message-ID: <593.1339681393@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "roll@ietf.org" , "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, Pascal Thubert Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:43:17 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Laurent" =3D=3D Laurent Toutain writes: Laurent> +1, but I thought the 6LP working group was closed ! >> adopted as a WG item. I think that 6lowpan should adopt it, >> but I'm willing to discuss alternatives. Thus my statement including: "discuss alternatives" this includes going to 6man or roll or independant submission. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT9nqcYqHRg3pndX9AQIF4wP+JNTEvBhp1iKaH1Ays5FKCcHZOMFOcp1X oVTrqb5ix6pc9/0RuZWA4tAWy7rJjjwwOOsAmaEMd01sWC9YuT2zfl+O/JmFnybe Dn7qrqJnF6eNSwqp7y8P5YLyDGVRKIOZjnNYnXl9aGx++zWzQ6UyqzUbZ/8d2L5Q 4AxArNaCxpg= =6o0a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From cabo@tzi.org Thu Jun 14 08:10:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB20021F86EC for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:10:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.763 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.763 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.514, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tl9DjC8O65sI for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86AE121F86EB for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:10:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5EFAX6Q024435; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:10:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54899DA7.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.157.167]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7BE41F8; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:10:32 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:10:31 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5DCC3808-2D17-4BB0-B546-1E39BA3FE7FB@tzi.org> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca>

<031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618A92DCC@011-DB3MPN2-081.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> To: Abdussalam Baryun X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:10:52 -0000 On Jun 14, 2012, at 13:16, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > I also think the memebrs are only authorised to decide if cotinue or = not, > if there was no good reason announced ;) Well, that's not how the IETF works. The IETF sets up WGs to solve specific, well-defined problems. When that work is done, the WG is closed. That doesn't mean everything is going away -- often, e.g., the mailing = list stays open. 6LoWPAN is close to achieving all the work it was tasked for (actually, = looking at http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/charter/ you can see = all our milestones are already marked as done; however, there is some = shepherding to be done while the last two documents are on their way to = RFC). So, indeed, it is close to being closed. By the way, it is the prerogative of the IESG to set up and close down = WGs. WG chairs come into play only to run the WG. (Of course, when it became clear that it is becoming time to shut down = 6LoWPAN, we were asked about our opinion, but it wasn't our decision.) Yes, it would be nice to know where continuing work on the INT area = aspects of constrained node/networks is to be done. We have a new INT = AD that has expressed interest in solving that problem together with the = existing responsible AD for 6LoWPAN. But there is no rush -- 6LoWPAN is = around and alive, and the work on the interesting documents can continue = on the 6LoWPAN mailing list (with a subscriber count currently north of = 700). I would expect we know the way forward by the end of Vancouver = IETF. So now let's return from the process discussion to the technical work of = reviewing the draft, finding things that can be left out from the design = to further simplify it, and gaining simulation (from packet captures) = and implementation experience. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jun 14 13:13:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7786B21F858D; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:13:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.252 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.702, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XHLK51Iqas4d; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B4B21F8567; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB8448297; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:10:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1EC8F98C2E; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:13:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BC598C2D; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:13:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6lowpan@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, richard.kelsey@ember.com, ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:13:20 -0400 Message-ID: <6808.1339704800@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: [6lowpan] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:13:23 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that=20 MLE messages are sent using UDP. I want to suggest that MLE messages should be sent at least as IPv6 ICMP messages.=20=20 Further, I think that it could use the RPL type 155, and RPL would allocate a new "code" codepoint. There would be some preference to have the general structure of MLE match that of RPL, but I think that this isn't particularly a strong requirement. Allocating a new ICMP type code for MLE alone might be seen as excessive, but I can not speak for the folks in 6man. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT9pF34qHRg3pndX9AQJPIAP+N8iVtsvMdZ5Puona18HH5pm1bFSiDpV8 PtcYZ4/boPM1EoS+bluWA13oEoHyGY+jQJ/Za5Ta/Yh31L82VF0QMoozPAhOwwSH 9Ow6Kuf/CL+JQbUXRprSl9CYgbe2fa0OHlvb8pcMZd/ETzeUgwLtREjhEZZRangy NynhubUyQN8= =qj/y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 02:25:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A048821F85D1 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:25:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ww6n4Gvz+ITZ for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm4-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm4-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.90.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E18921F85D0 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.48] by nm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 09:25:49 -0000 Received: from [68.142.200.226] by tm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 09:25:49 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.105] by t7.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 09:25:49 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1010.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 09:25:49 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 91060.14530.bm@omp1010.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 83612 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 09:25:48 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339752348; bh=N2HYMj3YUpjfA+ecBMkLAgQGOaAXBqI86DSSaK7wnvI=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=jN+BYYU1pE2I/c0/Xd8l+BnsiTwp/gGFOsub6RNAmb2YA94qb5DebhAKR61YoDFFhn+HYVFs1z7ErOerkOR4Js2xrXANoI2z1EXRZ1xAC7Byr4x/unW19BX5qGEcp/JORDmRSmPDXrGJvosqfpNP3LwxZ6A8/0fkiMycZQQ4ujc= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: _tsrMlMVM1lC3BKXcycyN8Pqz7q7tjoipyFRsv.Vg8F8n2R 86zKH3VoHLIBwcxlAVkGqHLLfvqJHmrrr5cNWpJ1ECHKPmsG9Opf_Xj2gw4b U6Y7tFQ8DRfNsiXUNHNq5zpaWWDfCnoALLfnGsdoBET3c4z5jIiIRKRyp5FE FYwIVeiE7yXI4RAZ9ATQttZ5_9iaeZ8IXeby9WHOcIWWJayIycoFgU6QPLzL O5IsNx2l9SVWl4GMBwVFN0faNc5gYY692ioEUc.74OzMG1MytdMWnR_D4xFb mLqS5c_Znuu6LqhsqA2S6FfMXHE27_Qdu8vwFjdN8mdaX5yw7C56i6qbDK.q UHZNsOTY5YnvOD5ARAzN_qgKL6CxmIIG8_lt6NSOfYcaIwqCorHJw43nBgx8 JgXR2Gzxf80_hJiQSVOMxMq7AwAkbdPETGdy9 X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.205.138.57] (d.sturek@209.226.201.250 with login) by smtp111.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 02:25:48 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:43:36 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson , <6lowpan@ietf.org>, , , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <6808.1339704800@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:25:52 -0000 All sounds fantastic but we don't have time for all these changes so will opt to use MLE as written using UDP ( at least for our application....) Don On 6/14/12 1:13 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > >In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that > MLE messages are sent using UDP. > >I want to suggest that MLE messages should be sent at least as IPv6 >ICMP messages. > >Further, I think that it could use the RPL type 155, and RPL would >allocate a new "code" codepoint. > >There would be some preference to have the general structure of MLE >match that of RPL, but I think that this isn't particularly a strong >requirement. Allocating a new ICMP type code for MLE alone might be >seen as excessive, but I can not speak for the folks in 6man. > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > >_______________________________________________ >Roll mailing list >Roll@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From ietf@thomasclausen.org Fri Jun 15 03:32:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C4C21F85B6; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dcy4d7nMMngf; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD6321F85A1; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE407557F4B; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692A31C0864; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.129.61.101] (37-8-178-84.coucou-networks.fr [37.8.178.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFBB51C07CC; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:13 -0700 (PDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <2E20BD63-02D7-4275-A3C1-2E070D9BB90E@thomasclausen.org> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: Thomas Heide Clausen Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:32:17 +0200 To: Don Sturek Cc: Michael Richardson , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:32:16 -0000 Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not immediately clear to me ho= w tied MLE should be to RPL - if it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link esta= blishment, then it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be= tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& conventions etc= ., that do not apply universally). I guess I'm expressing some sort of support for Don's position... --=20 Thomas Heide Clausen http://www.thomasclausen.org/ "Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to discuss it." -- Mitchell's Law of Committees On 15 Jun 2012, at 01:43, Don Sturek wrote: > All sounds fantastic but we don't have time for all these changes so will > opt to use MLE as written using UDP ( at least for our application....) >=20 > Don >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 6/14/12 1:13 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that >> MLE messages are sent using UDP. >>=20 >> I want to suggest that MLE messages should be sent at least as IPv6 >> ICMP messages. =20 >>=20 >> Further, I think that it could use the RPL type 155, and RPL would >> allocate a new "code" codepoint. >>=20 >> There would be some preference to have the general structure of MLE >> match that of RPL, but I think that this isn't particularly a strong >> requirement. Allocating a new ICMP type code for MLE alone might be >> seen as excessive, but I can not speak for the folks in 6man. >>=20 >> --=20 >> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Roll mailing list >> Roll@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From cabo@tzi.org Fri Jun 15 03:43:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B5921F85C5; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qPYTZ9iFwAI; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EFA21F85C0; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5FAhcsM014957; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (reingewinn.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.218.123]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA0625A8; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:38 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:38 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2D207A78-AD9A-47B6-AD51-9108CEA7D502@tzi.org> References: To: Don Sturek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Michael Richardson , roll@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:43:55 -0000 > we don't have time for all these changes It's likely that the next question that will come up is: Should this be published as an informational RFC called "ZigBee's MLE = protocol" because the protocol is no longer really meant to be modified = in the process or should it be pursued as a standards track document? (Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stability of protocols when there is = running code. Stability against gratuitous change and Brownian motion, that is. =20 But not when there are good technical reasons to have the change. We should be having the discussion on whether that's the case, I think. And how the encapsulation of MLE works in the first place, something I = don't understand yet.) Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Fri Jun 15 03:46:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3536F21F854D for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sDsmvdNAOdPE for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2288221F853D for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so1840377vbb.31 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=b5ScJ7T7Nk8ilUc67NrFIAXs5N1V8+/ULRz7TW7IqE0=; b=kBnWGkTVM1Vc7LRc3lD8DQ/zEgwYVVp65lOsVriPNGOzJoBT8GsrniH+9IWjWMdZ0k tJGpwSgEAOHQhkKyPVJs4jFNKzK8iF9JBKla/02Orw2dZpZoL0GuIT+wqlxRzJuFcfnW STu/j5IbSVn7um4Z+dIQzObgMGQ3WTiZSyIW/61J2m/dQXwAH1btMibycxhpPp3vaCCS 9aAc6D3xOK1GpXoK2vXUkuZ6sYPeqIizWf/XBKmTXSkxzqNPSdlWcwZWdg73cfguNTVO df1uPwaxHE39jyuAKWXkH69SVdCbhJhgGcRMdgFZ7VrIUmo0VIfNZKGDAKre7QOrY0iy bjsA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.24.179 with SMTP id v19mr2356171vdf.127.1339757214408; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.211.72 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:46:54 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5015e7bd9a1a104c2808865 Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: [6lowpan] Does the 6lowpan WG want to close? X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:46:56 -0000 --bcaec5015e7bd9a1a104c2808865 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Carsten, I agree that it was good to complete the tasks and solve the specific issues, and it may be a good reason for close, but I also think the working group can decide if they want to bring more tasks in and continue (I don't see a role in IETF to MUST close WG if completes the specific problems, if I am wrong please refer me to a page reference?), and if they want to solve other problems related to the group purpose. I think that the community drives works/inputs in IETF WGs. IMO, the IESG is only to decide to requests of open or close, after they get an input with reason. I don't think they are prerogative to decide the input and decide the output as well. IMO IESG are prerogative to decide the outcome. The inputs are decided by the WG, and the WG may not decide the outcome-result of such input. So I think if we want to request for continue/close we see the community input for 6Lowpan WG, then if they wanted to continue we input to IESG for their approval, if they want to close then it will be without an input request. There is a possibility that I don't know how the IETF works, but I read the IETF procedures, and see that there is no good reason for close without the WG consensus or input of this issue. Regards AB =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Jun 14, 2012, at 13:16, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > > > I also think the memebrs are only authorised to decide if cotinue or no= t, > > if there was no good reason announced ;) > > Well, that's not how the IETF works. > > The IETF sets up WGs to solve specific, well-defined problems. > When that work is done, the WG is closed. > That doesn't mean everything is going away -- often, e.g., the mailing > list stays open. > > 6LoWPAN is close to achieving all the work it was tasked for (actually, > looking at http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/charter/ you can see > all our milestones are already marked as done; however, there is some > shepherding to be done while the last two documents are on their way to > RFC). > So, indeed, it is close to being closed. > > By the way, it is the prerogative of the IESG to set up and close down WG= s. > WG chairs come into play only to run the WG. > (Of course, when it became clear that it is becoming time to shut down > 6LoWPAN, we were asked about our opinion, but it wasn't our decision.) > > Yes, it would be nice to know where continuing work on the INT area > aspects of constrained node/networks is to be done. We have a new INT AD > that has expressed interest in solving that problem together with the > existing responsible AD for 6LoWPAN. But there is no rush -- 6LoWPAN is > around and alive, and the work on the interesting documents can continue = on > the 6LoWPAN mailing list (with a subscriber count currently north of 700)= . > I would expect we know the way forward by the end of Vancouver IETF. > > So now let's return from the process discussion to the technical work of > reviewing the draft, finding things that can be left out from the design = to > further simplify it, and gaining simulation (from packet captures) and > implementation experience. > > Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten > > --bcaec5015e7bd9a1a104c2808865 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Carsten,

=A0

I agree that it was good to complete the tasks and solve the specific = issues, and it may be a good reason for close, but I also think=A0the worki= ng group can decide if they want to bring more tasks in and continue (I don= 't see=A0a role in IETF to MUST close WG if completes the specific prob= lems, if=A0I am wrong please refer me to a=A0page reference?),=A0and if the= y want to solve other problems related to the group purpose. I think that t= he community drives works/inputs in IETF WGs.

=A0

IMO, the IESG is only to decide to requests of open or close,=A0after = they get an input with reason. I don't think they are prerogative to de= cide=A0the input and decide the output as well. IMO IESG are prerogative to= decide the outcome. The inputs are decided by the WG, and the WG may not d= ecide the outcome-result of such input. So I think if we want to request fo= r continue/close we see=A0the community input=A0for 6Lowpan WG, then if the= y wanted to continue we input to IESG for their approval, if they want to c= lose then it will be without an=A0input request.

=A0

There is a possibility that I don't know how the IETF works, but I= read the IETF procedures, and see that there is no good reason for close w= ithout the WG consensus or input of this issue.

=A0

Regards

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Carsten Bormann= <ca= bo@tzi.org> wrote:

On Jun 14, 2012, at 13:16, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I also think the memebrs are only authorised to decide if cotinue or= not,
> if there was no good reason announced ;)

Well, t= hat's not how the IETF works.

The IETF sets up WGs to solve specific, well-defined problems.
When = that work is done, the WG is closed.
That doesn't mean everything is= going away -- often, e.g., the mailing list stays open.

6LoWPAN is = close to achieving all the work it was tasked for (actually, looking at = http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/charter/ you can see all our mil= estones are already marked as done; however, there is some shepherding to b= e done while the last two documents are on their way to RFC).
So, indeed, it is close to being closed.

By the way, it is the prero= gative of the IESG to set up and close down WGs.
WG chairs come into pla= y only to run the WG.
(Of course, when it became clear that it is becomi= ng time to shut down 6LoWPAN, we were asked about our opinion, but it wasn&= #39;t our decision.)

Yes, it would be nice to know where continuing work on the INT area asp= ects of constrained node/networks is to be done. =A0We have a new INT AD th= at has expressed interest in solving that problem together with the existin= g responsible AD for 6LoWPAN. =A0But there is no rush -- 6LoWPAN is around = and alive, and the work on the interesting documents can continue on the 6L= oWPAN mailing list (with a subscriber count currently north of 700). =A0I w= ould expect we know the way forward by the end of Vancouver IETF.

So now let's return from the process discussion to the technical wo= rk of reviewing the draft, finding things that can be left out from the des= ign to further simplify it, and gaining simulation (from packet captures) a= nd implementation experience.

Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten

--bcaec5015e7bd9a1a104c2808865-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Jun 15 06:12:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55AE621F845F; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:12:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.615, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mxxLy26f+Toy; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4E621F86CB; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C8C78549; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 94F7C98C2E; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E46198C2D; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:12:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Thomas Heide Clausen In-Reply-To: <2E20BD63-02D7-4275-A3C1-2E070D9BB90E@thomasclausen.org> References: <2E20BD63-02D7-4275-A3C1-2E070D9BB90E@thomasclausen.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:12:13 -0400 Message-ID: <16656.1339765933@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:12:19 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Thomas" =3D=3D Thomas Heide Clausen writes: Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally).=20 Thomas, you will note that: 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a type/code. 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT9s0rYqHRg3pndX9AQKLCgP/eg+mGX3tdePewosTFvFyyNiBj+hZ7ULk KTiyNFhTpjTKwZIV5y3eVOv/SmFCqSgFDckZtBrLW7m3DylwxnTAXTkXkmmmuIeO 9zYbK+FUC+BomKS25Tm6uIkSAl84GLn2KT3x/hKIBvmLxZx9rBkP5Y35QiMQHQKJ mzp8qMaC+aw= =Y5fM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From ietf@thomasclausen.org Fri Jun 15 06:15:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AA021F86D9; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TVQ5SjMiDjpx; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDFC21F86CE; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C718557FB1; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9F41BCC2A8; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.147.115] (mtg91-1-82-227-24-173.fbx.proxad.net [82.227.24.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27DBB1BCC2A5; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Heide Clausen In-Reply-To: <16656.1339765933@marajade.sandelman.ca> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:15:36 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6FE0075D-CB42-4FE1-A5D2-20330917542C@thomasclausen.org> References: <2E20BD63-02D7-4275-A3C1-2E070D9BB90E@thomasclausen.org> <16656.1339765933@marajade.sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:15:36 -0000 On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote: >=20 >>>>>> "Thomas" =3D=3D Thomas Heide Clausen = writes: > Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not > Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if > Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then > Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not = be > Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& > Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally).=20 >=20 > Thomas, you will note that: > 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such = push > back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a = type/code. > 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. >=20 In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such = that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context = (special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and = specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment. > I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. I don't. Thomas > --=20 > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20= > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >=20 From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 06:57:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8E121F875B for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.475 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XO2scSvyZcsQ for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm20.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm20.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.212.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AC01C21F8760 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.215.143] by nm20.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 13:57:47 -0000 Received: from [68.142.194.243] by tm14.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 13:57:47 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.109] by t1.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 13:57:47 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1014.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 13:57:47 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 113027.39569.bm@omp1014.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 16548 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 13:57:47 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339768667; bh=wYKSezaP4Owb5+5j2ofTKxL2UEB4+zSNMIZ5r65CuhE=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=fRrpdSNPPv9K2/VQiqD1kb+G2WbDRJd6NYKgWuYdhox2sFrXgk9EkGvpgagnYBWWLSAGPKA/ZFAx0Hgkc9WQ/JI2MmzdQ4LyPMt7WJTckueR57ZQhhGi7/ce/SHffMPW5Zvi/3h0KpbL87D1b0vb0johN0WrmmtnU5Hfmm73T8E= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: RxQRipwVM1kxRBn.4uTZe_0F5knr8G.DTwTa4woPQIlWhov wbIw_IPP4E7YSZw3a54oDFfoRBMkqpMTrNSImas3_zewP7_6dTlpm8RgqiX1 fFbfkxU6oHcDCi4MFLWLhOjvGHHNvTocmvFK5KJ2BT9kkiCmEOx4nR2UNBBB NXF05x97fjACXWGpyzFfjqVxvyuNhyJOndj0pwuqI9BHuxNsBA0Eb5rePBCn sg_hQmQrn10grtugdKXXfhtPcss7SNh73nAIpH6kbxBBtn1ZrnTGgan.CNwT cgY.LEWCImO3yU29jnx71Gdi6EJOpMeOa7y3YJUdlKbqfpTcUiQyjVYpkx8g fooJp7F5VZ_nuqW6Oc0oxTOOQmCyW1xW_2mxHlDYvX8Iow18PSTCMXAggnjA Oqqf68EexKSet2zPuaFwDL9cGM7iKduLcpQr0yPKgRbcYYry.nSR2L957GbH b00AV4fyISN1Exg29RWc5M2Wfh3juRR_nfdvSi0v7aXeceuWvPDelfbMjKNE - X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.242.10.56] (d.sturek@208.54.15.109 with login) by smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 06:57:46 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:57:38 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Thomas Heide Clausen , Michael Richardson Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <6FE0075D-CB42-4FE1-A5D2-20330917542C@thomasclausen.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:57:48 -0000 Hi Thomas (and Michael), I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL. The draft was written carefully to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL. That said, the deployment we are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL (non-storing) and I think many others will find the information exchanged between neighbors using MLE as useful. Don On 6/15/12 6:15 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" wrote: > >On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote: > >> >>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen writes: >> Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not >> Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if >> Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then >> Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be >> Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& >> Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally). >> >> Thomas, you will note that: >> 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push >> back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a >>type/code. >> 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. >> > >In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such >that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context >(special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and >specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment. > >> I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. > >I don't. > >Thomas > >> -- >> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >> > From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 07:00:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F7E21F8789 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:00:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M8p0un0uPAPh for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm15-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm15-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.90.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A1B1521F8770 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.226.176] by nm15.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:00:13 -0000 Received: from [209.191.108.97] by tm11.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:00:13 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.112] by t4.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:00:13 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:00:13 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 68554.90156.bm@omp1017.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 58417 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 14:00:13 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339768813; bh=AFDdcLshwegeGdJ3PyFMNWUiQr8maS3RpLbyUe1Hxfs=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=bqWBUdoA/7r1/6mRwwox21jJbe5ohQAL6vEgb/tYex4pz9jRpUgGu5S8GekLP6VuklHq4chDtzVGK0lobz0j4b5r0SOEYX1CnpfS4Dc3BTrBxzU1H4i+Hzk/y8MSud46lrDLY3vdHlL/4FnJYzHyDCJK2REbT8dkZSCrH+wz+S8= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: qqtsPxcVM1lDeQVimWV_0ENh76.4ITpbVxHCpltrAXNSMhj 3MVm9bUfKPcy0aEt2J_XFOR72TFTucbeb1Gj6gOdLKzhlx6RVV8LsEzKhzm3 RuU60xFOOCRTRHlZvp9mzSZ1vRcvCKe7lwgeCFwvCVyJFQBewr.P7ZufnWdh WX.abpd2u85S9PJJnp8sH4mE8kLurj2P4Y0MZm_C5TEbkOTXnPsbGUNQFqLh 5TBGK0zhl41kfGGEu9MO6CeHu96ZBd0P87QP.vIWXGclZUY1wa3GvAUezJg4 KDE3jlOSmu_5tG6.ld7FSOJbs1xYWklSTGWS8ELVIlLSP76zn5hO0D72jO3N rW8lSuMTWk0U3mORlA4K3LLH0IYGcRZ5kEGsgw9GGnJQlRuCBv0n54DI7mK0 z8uUWo4FLcXqdbvh7A_0Kt61mhQYAXPEbITSNJF6gv6O4bPW6Ug63KiiA4Ob NPP2g7cPNNJm3Ke4XaXJ0FAiwIp0EHzDGMc.nSWWzEc074qjkLnoX35rWiQg - X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.242.10.56] (d.sturek@208.54.15.109 with login) by smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 07:00:11 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:59:50 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson , Thomas Heide Clausen Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <16656.1339765933@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:00:18 -0000 Hi Michael, We believe UDP makes the most sense as a transport for MLE. ICMP will take entirely too long and will end up being a maintenance issue if there are additional information exchanges needed using MLE. While the ZigBee Alliance is using ROLL RPL and 6LoWPAN, the information exchanged in MLE is not tied specifically to those protocols (however, those implementing will find the exchange useful......) Don On 6/15/12 6:12 AM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen writes: > Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not > Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if > Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then > Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be > Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& > Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally). > >Thomas, you will note that: > 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push > back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a >type/code. > 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. > >I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 07:13:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B57A21F8754 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:13:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.528 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H6Vof-QgqkQ1 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm31-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm31-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.229.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3374321F875C for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.226.177] by nm31.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:13:22 -0000 Received: from [68.142.194.244] by tm12.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:13:22 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.100] by t2.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:13:22 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1005.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:13:22 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 319311.65983.bm@omp1005.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 63045 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 14:13:22 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339769601; bh=Prw8VTExGAVZY+YNdUhj2FQ0DGRK8DpKkJJ+t8VNJhY=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=aBjQSZOiws4P2VF5JQDTJvJ0Mj8Vqv85HfR6C6X7bjzCCD1amcNYu2XqlgnW+rdk0XTWaXahzf1i4L850m29nnzCZdM9/TslKWfB9nnpyeNMhq5YTecOqzVYF7Dt2a2Db4RKzowQ2FJlFCXuYv3v3W6ojub8GhrOCoFG2MMwzhU= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 3WQPiMsVM1mtRLPKVTOOfr1T5EPzQ6mKriM41tRvBneF92V hMdO6oZ6v1e1P2F1crFJSBMZPBIuXBXyKkUavTlReBOYzzv83ks9myZHFzFa 6CLnIIJYUS2zZDUoOCShRvtSvUaB3hGv3c5hrKWu.9LWREk.DRU.cYKZKlmx sDozDDLA5v6WdikKP5ljdspy6Ic67uefMgL6xglWbHZgbnkYVm1MqCLIjPHM K_GXWMkV0kuCfEmQ6X9_hIoOcxwxXjTmq3R.QeYTXxiLraIAbYfSdelz9lQb IxMCbxv0nvN_BAJ2pw5SwI1otHMcYfFBgd2dN8gIzIVF2lI9tHrzN2bCkbb8 oWJ8wy61ScsLkAdYXaajWApforZXaTiZcTpMifggyuIxoZhsBYBk1skVet_n pIHndvntsxrvvqXU4yordeSsrAkVocq4Xmg-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.242.10.56] (d.sturek@208.54.15.109 with login) by smtp101.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 07:13:13 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:12:58 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Carsten Bormann Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <2D207A78-AD9A-47B6-AD51-9108CEA7D502@tzi.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Michael Richardson , roll@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:13:28 -0000 Hi Carsten, I answered a similar note privately from Michael. Let me share part of that here for everyone: ...... (part of note to Michael deleted....)....... We are just sharing our experience of now 2 years of monthly interops using 6LoWPAN, ROLL RPL, PANA and now MLE. Many of us participated in 6LoWPAN ND and ROLL RPL in IETF (including the author of the MLE draft). We are simply offering up that body of experience to point out the remaining gaps in deploying these protocols. We are pretty close to having a sizable number of semiconductor manufacturers go through commercial certification on these RFCs and drafts. We do have a specification but it simply calls out the RFCs and drafts then provides a baseline configuration used in our commercial deployment. We think many other commercial groups will need to do the same to make interoperability a reality using these protocols. I do believe our specification will be made publicly available once our initial certification is complete (maybe 6 months from now?). The interesting part is product developers should have access to IP enabled IEEE 802.15.4 written in such a way to provide multi-vendor interoperability. One thing though: We realized we needed MLE rather late in our interop process so we don't have a lot of time to close on MLE (commercially). Certainly your ideas to use either ROLL RPL messages or ICMP messages for MLE would not work for us schedule wise. We would have to continue using MLE as written (using UDP) if it goes in another direction within IETF. That said, if we can find a way to *extend* the protocol using input from the ROLL WG (or others) in a way that allows us to continue through certification using MLE (maybe with even some small changes) that would be a win for everyone. ........ (end of note.....)........ Don On 6/15/12 3:43 AM, "Carsten Bormann" wrote: >> we don't have time for all these changes > >It's likely that the next question that will come up is: > >Should this be published as an informational RFC called "ZigBee's MLE >protocol" because the protocol is no longer really meant to be modified >in the process or should it be pursued as a standards track document? > >(Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stability of protocols when there is >running code. >Stability against gratuitous change and Brownian motion, that is. >But not when there are good technical reasons to have the change. >We should be having the discussion on whether that's the case, I think. >And how the encapsulation of MLE works in the first place, something I >don't understand yet.) > >Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten > From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 07:27:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C50121F8769 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:27:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bl30-Vzcgq+g for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm34-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm34-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.229.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A1BF21F8758 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.48] by nm34.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:27:17 -0000 Received: from [68.142.194.244] by tm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:27:17 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.99] by t2.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:27:17 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1004.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:27:17 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 629659.11249.bm@omp1004.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 41982 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 14:27:17 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339770437; bh=B3MkwchSpRexCffgMr0QGIQ9B4f3EDxbXD12jApPkT4=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=IU7Tk38htPR/QSrlTMwB4NMGuPW/YLyPoIOEl8uiPWlc+H/BfWILo2xlpaEX4PGjHWf+5n4PEojvTbuEn1OxX3XlLR3DENiFXSV0SyqNdwhpV1vvycap2frvwTQnASUCjw8BU/YUZr1orX5l2VPdQZ/s9bLcy+j03bNjjK+EId8= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: HntDCzIVM1lnXKz4VWlUDBSGugYmHw_mtZtYwfWkN15O9WW iDcDVM64.FYNAM0Bnu54QssHvQ2lty180ytgKww421sNbFQAYfPd8sEQ.LH7 HkXfNEKb0ucgd0chtGc5K_Y3cN5sLSew7ToZczP2IcQ5nt_BBsr9YNr6vvWq dxkSz6.tWXmJdYsSEWC9.uW3p6c151zlSr9Seflm4ceZvRhxOrc4gFkk72rU Is3IGlQTIHP7rxSGX9iDJ1EgwFwg8l.aU_xohZtm2I3OpClPxRMdzILUyYUZ Z4W6oL_8LAJQoOQ8v46BM2NJihymd6XtMI6AITf_1_ZLyV2EhKxtX5eqToYA fe1gpMxeJneRWyO0PBTph9O6pOe9BFuf.4Ahs0arSAksu9e_T0zh_E3q.2Ed PpU7M8TOG9zrUtZgovii7YieLvFZFoN_B3ksXtAIxe6EyEumopWo- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.242.10.248] (d.sturek@208.54.15.47 with login) by smtp111.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 07:27:16 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:19:53 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Thomas Heide Clausen Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <2E20BD63-02D7-4275-A3C1-2E070D9BB90E@thomasclausen.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: Michael Richardson , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:27:19 -0000 Hi Thomas, Sorry it was late when I wrote that response :-) We debated a long time on MLE. We knew we needed a one hop information exchange between nodes to help with 6LoWPAN ND (eg exchange long address information), link quality (eg. for creation and maintenance of symmetric links), etc. We looked at a lot of transport options and UDP seemed to make the most sense. One nice thing about having MLE use UDP: If someone wishes to extend MLE they don't need to have work done in ICMP or ROLL to make it happen. I think we arrived at the Internet area for the draft since part of MLE helps with 6LoWPAN ND, other functions help with ROLL RPL parent selection. I think we made these generic so others with similar needs could make use of MLE without necessarily using either 6LoWPAN ND or ROLL RPL. That said, if ROLL is interested in this draft, Richard Kelsey (the drafts author) has plenty of experience there :-) Don On 6/15/12 3:32 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" wrote: >Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not immediately clear to me >how tied MLE should be to RPL - if it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link >establishment, then it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should >not be tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& >conventions etc., that do not apply universally). > >I guess I'm expressing some sort of support for Don's position... > >-- >Thomas Heide Clausen >http://www.thomasclausen.org/ > >"Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to > discuss it." > -- Mitchell's Law of Committees > > >On 15 Jun 2012, at 01:43, Don Sturek wrote: > >> All sounds fantastic but we don't have time for all these changes so >>will >> opt to use MLE as written using UDP ( at least for our application....) >> >> Don >> >> >> >> On 6/14/12 1:13 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: >> >>> >>> In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that >>> MLE messages are sent using UDP. >>> >>> I want to suggest that MLE messages should be sent at least as IPv6 >>> ICMP messages. >>> >>> Further, I think that it could use the RPL type 155, and RPL would >>> allocate a new "code" codepoint. >>> >>> There would be some preference to have the general structure of MLE >>> match that of RPL, but I think that this isn't particularly a strong >>> requirement. Allocating a new ICMP type code for MLE alone might be >>> seen as excessive, but I can not speak for the folks in 6man. >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Roll mailing list >>> Roll@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> 6lowpan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Jun 15 07:30:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0185921F8620; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:30:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.408 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.546, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hwMohASu44EL; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830B121F87A0; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09ABE8549; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E6FCC98C2E; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:30:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F8B98C2D; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:30:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Don Sturek In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:30:45 -0400 Message-ID: <10344.1339770645@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:30:48 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Don" =3D=3D Don Sturek writes: Don> We believe UDP makes the most sense as a transport for MLE. ICMP = will Don> take entirely too long and will end up being a maintenance issue i= f there Don> are additional information exchanges needed using MLE. I can't see a difference myself in "length of time", unless you mean time to change hardware/firmware/software. ICMP is even 4 bytes shorter than UDP. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT9tHFYqHRg3pndX9AQIRpwP9HQtqV4Vd1K9YKKUaoojKj45oeMHjGZ91 JyIGiCLt68JFckjtdf2zParPXmuvX34zcFSUNRFeg+ZzBm8AKQXcqhTw2myRyfBp IBgr7Ou1Ustk521qglIct4MOc60GnM8IgAILPNGKqfNveuxSdq0Zn/MH7Ph/MI4w wsP0uA3lfoM= =xNbW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 07:48:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06E121F8796 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:48:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.332 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lwfymy9FHWFc for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm30-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm30-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 85AC021F870F for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.94.237.195] by nm30.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:48:18 -0000 Received: from [98.139.244.53] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:48:18 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:48:17 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339771697; bh=T8h+qqj8CRezqE+pPTf+0wRQ4HMDJ5acTT+PMqBwpEI=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=kjp6qopJ+DebqwOXWOsFNW5XjCO/qrkNPbtMg4VeS9azLBf53rf2KucZiATOai5+PKi5xmvyLUinxxAoS1ZcW4zK0/cDgLIji5JeFqyLCuY4QPtldB7F8GvSI2V8epg/Td0lJWOwLu1d9PwsdypJAlfEyvfZ+YMk+f2idhOPS8k= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 982799.5990.bm@smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: .qiTxgkVM1k3aIeXEKHrtOlsGJJxuV6EL1j3Da0PgBhgAtj 5kE6DG_h1svGeQfTZi8M7OjjPLRU9EN2Qvr4McxQj0F9cXEHDxyEIK5YM31N DeyBhHLDupelzqlI3rtAWRIZSAh1fG0FoaROKwqxflNzLZtYbqd2zs.Q6wVP oAZrd0AbMlOSAhMickVD9k66kBk0k9pWQuTQfAQ.mrO7k30SICQuOtC0WEZv Zjkdxnp8aivqnI65HY_iQopcH.SCLhV.Z2LWQzmT_xmpiyVyQJRfWMQ6t8ra ou569zgbf8tr1eI68PxG8kmpkJ1Ml30amt.XaMr39etG.Jz7Rshyw.Db8Sm. mC1DujFt7Ih2oFxJahKOGy6mHCPoAanVHNJBZSsGdBmX7XGPuecbbXlmj_OJ GsTqyi3FtEaqi6ujM4c09zpX1uQQhySHiVMrvMoSBtmp.F.kMxlUWXWLkxse azJ_MFKBWuO3QR1h8h9MsZINnCJsiQX7eZLRARwuFDEbLLkBfkwj8jZ5le00 hvExBopTKApKBVcrqQ1wS5VM5KA-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [192.168.43.94] (d.sturek@208.54.80.212 with login) by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 07:48:17 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:45:15 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <10344.1339770645@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "