Subject: [Roll] Gentle reminder

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:05:20 +0200

If you need a slot in Minnepolis, please let us know by the end of this
week.

Thanks.

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

---

From: "Mischa Dohler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:53:56 +0100

Dear JP, all,

I won't be able to make it to Minneapolis but would like to get the
following two points discussed:

1) Would it maybe be a good idea to try to draft a single protocol which
works more or less ok for all cases and then have add-ons to get a better
performance for each of them? If so, do we do so from the very beginning or
do we test the routing protocols developed for each scenario in the other
ones and take the best of all? (We have had an offline exchange with Jerry
on this.)

2) How exactly do we proceed with security? Is this going to be a thread per
draft or are we looking into a common solution? Who has committed already?

Thanks,
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
_____________________________

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of JP
Vasseur
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 4:05 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] Gentle reminder

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:07:37 +0200

Hi Mischa,

* new thread title *

Good points - comments below.

> ones and take the best of all? (We have had an offline exchange with Jerry

Well as you know we are not (yet) chartered to do protocol work. The WG has
been *incredibly* productive and we can all be very happy with the quick
progress so far. 

We first need to close on the requirements document. The Urban ID is being
LC'ed, the Home Automation ID will soon be LC'ed, we expect a new revision
of the Industrial ID before issuing a LC and I hope that the building
automation will continue to make progress to be LC'ed in a near future.

We then need to answer the two following questions:
1) Is there an existing protocol that meets our requirement: we have a WG
consensus (being confirmed on the ML) that the answer is "no"
2) Do we want to extend an existing routing protocol or develop a new
routing protocol.

We also need to make progress on other WG items before re-chartering:
1) The Routing Metric ID: I sent out an email asking for comments !
2) The Security document (see below)

What I'm hoping for is to be able to close on the requirement document
within 1-2 months, have WG documents for the metrics and security items and
have answers to the two questions above.

At this point we will be able to start discussing re-chartering issues,
which we are all looking for since we do need a *solution* in a short time
frame.

Now ... Here is my take on the routing solutions: having one routing
solution per application is not acceptable at the IETF. We need to target
*one* good enough routing solution and we may even have to reconsider some
of the MUST. This will be a WG decision. We *may* potential "define/select"
2 routing solutions if strongly justified. Interesting discussions once we
will have complete the other milestones.

> draft or are we looking into a common solution? Who has committed already?

Easy ... It is a WG item. Anyone can start writing an ID and your help would
be highly appreciated. Others interested ?

Thanks.

Cheers.

JP.

---

From: "M. B. Anand" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:20:54 -0400

Hi JP & Mischa,
> be highly appreciated. Others interested ?
As we discussed a while ago (with JP) Tzeta Tsao here has been working 
on a routing security framework draft. We may be able to post a 
(very)rough first cut soon, maybe even by Minneapolis. We will aim to do 
that. Perhaps we can see what shape it is in and take it further.

Regards,
Anand.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:50:01 +0100

Thanks Anand. Well you passed the cut-off date to submit a -00 document but
you could do it the first day of the IETF. Mischa would you want to work
with Anand on this ID ?

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:50:27 -0500

I agree with Mischa.

Phillip Levis (et al) did a great job in taking the various documents and 
developing an INTERSECTION of the requirements to determine the 
applicability of the existing routing protocols.  It would be nice to 
draft a document that is a UNION of the requirements.  Then we could 
encapsulate in one document (maybe one table) an overview of the 
requirements.  As Mischa notes, it should be a goal to develop a single 
routing protocol to cover the four markets.  Having a single cohesive 
document to act as the litmus test might aid in obtaining this goal.

Regards,

Jerry

"Mischa Dohler" <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
10/28/2008 05:00 AM
Please respond to
[email-masked]

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

Subject
Re: [Roll] Gentle reminder

Dear JP, all,

performance for each of them? If so, do we do so from the very beginning 
or

2) How exactly do we proceed with security? Is this going to be a thread 
per
draft or are we looking into a common solution? Who has committed already?

Thanks,
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

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:06:55 +0100

Hi,

The INTERSECTION of requirements has been used to derive the evaluation
criterion in the protocol survey document. That said, I do not think that we
need yet another requirements document summarizing the other application
specific routing documents. It is now time to think ³solutions².

Cheers.

JP.

On 10/29/08 9:50 PM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> developing an INTERSECTION of the requirements to determine the applicability
> of the existing routing protocols.  It would be nice to draft a document that
> is a UNION of the requirements.  Then we could encapsulate in one document
> (maybe one table) an overview of the requirements.  As Mischa notes, it should
> be a goal to develop a single routing protocol to cover the four markets.
> Having a single cohesive document to act as the litmus test might aid in
> obtaining this goal.
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Jerry 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent by: [email-masked] 10/28/2008 05:00 AM
> Please respond to
> [email-masked]
> To