Subject: [Roll] Adoption draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a new ROLL WG document

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:42:10 +0200

Dear WG,

A new revision of draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt has just
been posted that addresses many of comments that we all provided so far.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-req
s-01.txt

Are you in favor/opposed to the adoption
draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a ROLL WG document ?

Thanks.

JP.

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:05:23 +0300

I am in favor.

- Zach

JP Vasseur wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 

Zach Shelby
Head of Research
Sensinode Ltd.
Kidekuja 2
88610 Vuokatti
FINLAND

mobile: +358 40 7796297

This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain 
legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without 
producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:55:36 +0200

As you know building automation is part of our charter. Could you please let
us know what you think about this ID (in favor or opposed)?

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Tim Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:28:37 -0400

I am in favor.

-Tim

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:33:38 +0200

In favor.

Cheers,

Christian. 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de JP Vasseur
Envoyé : dimanche 19 octobre 2008 09:56
À : JP Vasseur; [email-masked]
Objet : [Roll] ** Resending ** Re: Adoptiondraft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a new ROLL WG document

As you know building automation is part of our charter. Could you please let us know what you think about this ID (in favor or opposed)?

Thanks.

JP.

On 10/14/08 4:42 PM, "JP Vasseur" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear WG,
> 
> A new revision of draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt has 
> just been posted that addresses many of comments that we all provided so far.
> 

*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:35:59 -0700

In favor.

	Dave

---

From: Kris Pister <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:41:30 -0700

in favor of adoption.

ksjp

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:00:01 -0500

As an author, I am not sure how much my vote counts.  I'm in favor.

JP Vasseur <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
10/19/2008 02:55 AM

To
JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
[Roll] ** Resending ** Re: Adoption 
draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a new ROLL WG document

As you know building automation is part of our charter. Could you please 
let
us know what you think about this ID (in favor or opposed)?

Thanks.

JP.

> A new revision of draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt has 
just

---

From: "M. B. Anand" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:15:07 -0400

In favor.

Regards,
Anand.

---

From: "Chol Su Kang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:58:38 -0700

I vote in favor.

Chol Su Kang

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
JP Vasseur
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 12:56 AM
To: JP Vasseur; [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] ** Resending ** Re: Adoption
draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a new ROLL WG
document

Thanks.

JP.

just
> been posted that addresses many of comments that we all provided so
far.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-martocci-roll-building-routing
-req

---

From: "Mischa Dohler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:03:23 +0200

Dear Jerry,

The building draft was an interesting read and certainly warrants being a
stand-alone ROLL WG document. I felt however that the building and home
drafts have some similarities. To this end, would you please be so kind and
summarize in a few words the key differences between both approaches, mainly
from a routing perspective? Thanks. (For example, focus of the urban draft
is on scalability; focus of the industrial draft is on reliable and quick
reporting; focus of the home draft is, so I believe, on heterogeneity and
also quick response.)

A small side note on your assumption of 1000+ nodes in the network,
something we also struggle(d) with in the urban draft. Watteyne et al have
done some studies with real-world hardware figures assuming a 1000 node
network and figured out that - no matter how hard you try - you can not make
nodes report more frequently than every 8 seconds. This is mainly because
the nodes close to the sink run out of buffer pretty quickly. I think this
will have an impact on your mentioned applications because you either have
to perform some heavy aggregation (which has not been mentioned, I think) or
heavy prioritization (which is central to your draft but only in the context
of time critical alarms).

Kind regards,
Mischa.

_____________________________________

Dr Mischa Dohler
Senior Researcher
CTTC, Barcelona

Tel: +34 93 645 2900
Fax: +34 93 645 2901
Mob: +34 6 7909 4007

www.cttc.es/home/mdohler
_____________________________________

... www.ict09.org ...................
... www.iwcld2009.org ...............
... www.ieee-secon.com/2009 .........
... www.ieeevtc.org/vtc2009spring ...
_____________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of JP
Vasseur
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 9:56 AM
To: JP Vasseur; [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] ** Resending ** Re: Adoption
draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a new ROLL WG document

Thanks.

JP.

just

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:36:16 +0100

Hi Mischa

To be honest, all the requirement drafts will have similarities in the
requirements, even if each context is different. I feel that reading
about the context is great to shade a light on why we are doing all
this, and my feeling is that the building context is still different
from home, more automation, less user interaction, etc...

So I'm in favor of adopting this draft even if it does not bring many
new requirements, as long as it does not delay us from starting the
committed work. IOW, I'm actually happy that it does not bring along too
much new stuff...

Pascal

>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Mischa Dohler
>Sent: mardi 21 octobre 2008 11:03
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Roll] ** Resending ** Re:
Adoptiondraft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a
>newROLL WG document
JP
document

---

From: "Mischa Dohler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:26:47 +0100

Hi Pascal,

Sorry, yes, my last email sent today may have come a little out of context
w.r.t. the one you refer to below, because we have had an offline email
exchange with Jerry. I am also in favour of adopting this draft but just
realized that I have not explicitly confirmed this to the list (not that it
matters now that it has gone through already).

Your own observation that there is a healthy amount of overlap between the
drafts is actually yet another incentive to possibly look into a common
routing solution which may not be optimum for each solution but work within
outlined requirements. Just a thought ...

Mischa.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:36 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Roll] ** Resending ** Re:
Adoptiondraft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a newROLL WG
document

Hi Mischa

Pascal

Mischa Dohler
JP
document

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:54:31 +0200

Hi,

Just to clarify a little bit: the building automation requirements document
is already a WG document, which does match one of our WG items.

With regards to the overlaps between requirements, yes there are
commonalities, as expected, and this is actually not an issue and a good
news :-) It is of course not because we have different requirement documents
that we will end up with different solutions.

Mischa, let me answer the second part in a separate email.

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Bernard Tourancheau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:26:48 +0100

Hi,
I am in favor of this draft.
Please notice that one of the author, N. Riou, is not on the first  
page list.
Best regards,
Bernard.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:53:03 -0500

Bernard,

Thanks for the comment on the document.  I have added Nicolas to the title 
page as an author in the version (-01) I will be posting this week.

Regards,

Jerry

Bernard Tourancheau <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
10/29/2008 12:27 AM

To
JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
cc
[email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject
Re: [Roll] ** Resending ** Re: Adoption 
draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a new       ROLL WG 
document

Hi,