Subject: [Roll] I-D Action:draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:30:01 -0800 (PST)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks
	Author(s)       : T. Winter, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06.txt
	Pages           : 82
	Date            : 2010-02-03

Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) are a class of network in which
both the routers and their interconnect are constrained: LLN routers
typically operate with constraints on (any subset of) processing
power, memory and energy (battery), and their interconnects are
characterized by (any subset of) high loss rates, low data rates and
instability.  LLNs are comprised of anything from a few dozen and up
to thousands of LLN routers, and support point-to-point traffic
(between devices inside the LLN), point-to-multipoint traffic (from a
central control point to a subset of devices inside the LLN) and
multipoint-to-point traffic (from devices inside the LLN towards a
central control point).  This document specifies the IPv6 Routing
Protocol for LLNs (RPL), which provides a mechanism whereby
multipoint-to-point traffic from devices inside the LLN towards a
central control point, as well as point-to-multipoint traffic from
the central control point to the devices inside the LLN, is
supported.  Support for point-to-point traffic is also available.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Tim Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:40:21 -0500

WG,

In this revision changes include:
	- editorial improvements
		- terminology
		- section 3
		- breaking out Protocol Specification into separate sections
	- text for a proposed downward route mechanism (section 6)
	- more flexible rank (see 3.6.2.1)

Please do continue to provide your feedback to the list

Thanks,

-RPL Authors

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:26:00 +0100

draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06.txt says:
> Copyright Notice
>
> Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
> document authors.  All rights reserved.
>
> This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
> Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
> (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
> publication of this document.  Please review these documents
> carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
> respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
> document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
> Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
> warranty as described in the BSD License.

What are the Code Components in this document?  I don't seem to see any,
is it normal?

What makes you Authors want to make it a BSD license?

We haven't discussed this until now and here it pops.

Absence of this clarification makes it a little bit fuzzy... because
what I know is that if I want to implement this document then I surely
want to have freedom to paste a license of my choice on it, not
necessarily the Simplified BSD License, please.

I don't understand where does this mandatory Simplified BSD License come
from...

Thanks,

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:07:59 +0100

"Code Components" seem to be pretty much anything - more than simply 
some C code.  They are for example "tables of values", as said in:
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/Code-Components-List-4-23-09.txt

I don't agree to be bound by the Simplified BSD License in order to use 
"tables of values"  such as the RPL Control Codes:

         +------+----------------------------------+---------------+
         | Code | Description                      | Reference     |
         +------+----------------------------------+---------------+
         | 0x01 | DAG Information Solicitation     | This document |
         | 0x02 | DAG Information Object           | This document |
         | 0x04 | Destination Advertisement Object | This document |
         +------+----------------------------------+---------------+

I am in full disagreement to be bound to this license for this table.

Part of this disagreement is because I did participate with feedback 
about this table and I never thought I was bound to this license.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:29:30 +0100

Excuse-me is it normal to have the Abstract before the "Status of this
Memo" and "Copyright Notice"?

Do the Status and Copyright cover the Abstract too?

I am asking because it is the first time I see this order, and I usually
expect the Abstract to come _after_ the Status and Copyright.

I may be not up to date with the recent trends...

Alex

Le 03/02/2010 12:30, [email-masked] a écrit :
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Routing Over Low power
> and Lossy networks Working Group of the IETF.
>
>
> Title           : RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy
> Networks Author(s)       : T. Winter, et al. Filename        :
> draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06.txt Pages           : 82 Date            :
> 2010-02-03
>
> (between devices inside the LLN), point-to-multipoint traffic (from
> a central control point to a subset of devices inside the LLN) and
> _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing
> list [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft
> directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:37:38 -0800

> I may be not up to date with the recent trends...

I think your concern is with the general IETF Trust Legal Provisions (4.0), and so probably isn't really worthwhile pursuing in this forum:

http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.htm

Phil

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:49:51 +0100

Le 04/02/2010 22:37, Philip Levis a écrit :
>> Excuse-me is it normal to have the Abstract before the "Status of
>> this Memo" and "Copyright Notice"?
>>
>> I am asking because it is the first time I see this order, and I
>> usually expect the Abstract to come _after_ the Status and
>> Copyright.
>>
> I think your concern is with the general IETF Trust Legal Provisions
>  (4.0), and so probably isn't really worthwhile pursuing in this
> forum:
>

Strange I don't see in that htm something telling to put the Abstract
first.  Maybe it's a matter of text editor.

(but I get your point about better discussing legal matters somewhere
  else.)

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:01:31 +0100

And let me add...

h t t p ://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-iana-05.txt makes it that the IETF 
Trust covers it, i.e. its tables, with a BSD license, i.e. not GPL.

Do we want RPL implemented in a Linux kernel?

Alex

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:48:58 -0500

>>>>> "Alexandru" == Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> Copyright Notice
    >> 
    >> Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
    >> without warranty as described in the BSD License.

    Alexandru> What are the Code Components in this document?  I don't
    Alexandru> seem to see any, is it normal?

This is normal. Not all documents have code components.  Did you go and
read BCP78?  Have you submitted a document before? Do you know that the
above is all boilerplate?

Code components that *might* be an IETF document are typically things
like MIB definitions.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:12:38 +0000

Hi,

>> this Memo" and "Copyright Notice"?

If "normal" is a historic measure, then no.
If "normal" is an increasingly popular approach, then yes.

The concern was that the Boilerplate was pushing the Anstract off the front 
page.

Re-ordering solves this, and is acceptable within the IETF copyright, 
license and boilerplate rules.

Please see the recently re-issued 
http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html for advice about what should and 
must be done.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:56:07 +0100

Thanks for the reply,

Le 07/02/2010 03:48, Michael Richardson a écrit :
>>>>>> "Alexandru" == Alexandru
>>>>>> Petrescu<[email-masked]>  writes:
>>> Copyright Notice
>>>
> This is normal. Not all documents have code components.  Did you go
> and read BCP78?  Have you submitted a document before? Do you know
> that the above is all boilerplate?

I am not legal specialist but I believe boilerplates are supposed to
make sense whatever much boilerplates they are.  To my reading it is
strange to talk about Code Components while there are no Code
Components.

Imagine that we wrote, as technical experts, that the encoding used by
RPL is bit not qubit.  It makes no sense and it is unnecessary distraction.

> Code components that *might* be an IETF document are typically things

Ah ok, this makes sense in a MIB document.

I think this draft doesn't describe MIB.

I also think Code Components might be much more than just MIB.

(and yes, I did submit documents some times and I may again in the
  future.)

Alex