Subject: [Roll] IPSO Interop event - Feed-back welcome

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:54:49 -0700

Hi,

Just re-enforcing my comments during the ROLL WG meeting ... any feed- 
back from the IPSO interop about any issues that you may have found
would be extremely useful to continue to improve our spec. Feel free  
to also share good news.

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:42:33 +0100

I'd like to state my surprise that a "closed-door-no-transparency- 
interop-event" is organized, and allowed to be run, during an IETF  
meeting -- otherwise the cathedral of open processes.....

Sincerely,

Thomas
(representing an RPL implementation, which was not deemed worthy of  
participation in this event)

On Mar 26, 2010, at 03:54 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just re-enforcing my comments during the ROLL WG meeting ... any  
> feed-back from the IPSO interop about any issues that you may have  
> found
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:25:30 -0700

On Mar 25, 2010, at 10:42 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:

>> would be extremely useful to continue to improve our spec. Feel  
>> free to also share good news.

Agreed -- it's kind of weird to ask for feed-back given that the  
event was closed. Why are we using these rather than standard, open,  
bake-off events? I can understand the role and need for IPSO, it just  
doesn't seem very relevant to IETF activities.

Phil

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:43:29 -0700

Hi Thomas,

> meeting -- otherwise the cathedral of open processes.....

Do not blame me for that ... The IPSO alliance organized an RPL  
interop event during the IETF week.
Any feed-back is useful for us to keep improving our spec.

Cheers.

JP.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:49:11 -0400

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]> writes:
    Thomas> I'd like to state my surprise that a
    Thomas> "closed-door-no-transparency- interop-event" is organized,
    Thomas> and allowed to be run, during an IETF meeting -- otherwise
    Thomas> the cathedral of open processes.....

+1

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:12:35 +0100

> doesn't seem very relevant to IETF activities.
Just a question, what is the use of an interop event without a wide audience ? 
I don't think there are too many Ripple implementations at the moment.

Henning Rogge

-- 
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't leave the game.
— The Laws of Thermodynamics, summarized

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:41:12 -0700

I agree with Henning and the others on this topic. I would have liked to
participate.

Ulrich

---

From: "Ramrekha, Arvind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:53:02 +0000

>> agree with Henning and the others on this topic. I would have liked to participate.

+1

Arvind.

_____________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ulrich Herberg [[email-masked]]
Sent: 26 March 2010 14:41
To: Henning Rogge
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Roll] IPSO Interop event - Feed-back welcome

I agree with Henning and the others on this topic. I would have liked to participate.

Ulrich

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Henning Rogge <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Henning Rogge

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

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:39:22 -0700

Hello,

Just to close on this thread ;-)

We (IETF) do not make decision on behalf of other alliances. Just  
welcome feed-back on implementations
from anyone.

Thanks.

JP.

On Mar 26, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Ramrekha, Arvind wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Henning Rogge  
> <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

---

From: Robert Cragie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:56:49 -0700

I would just like to add that alliances like IPSO and ZigBee have a 
primary role in conformance testing and the aim of the interops is to 
support conformance testing. Therefore PICS and test plans are developed 
alongside the specifications to achieve this. The interops have to be 
controlled or else nothing would be achieved in them. It is highly 
unlikely that anyone just turning up with a platform which hadn't been 
developed in accordance with the additional PICS and test plans would 
have managed to do any useful interop with other platforms; indeed it is 
likely to be disruptive for the alliance members moving towards 
conformance, even in these early stages.

However it is entirely reasonable to ask for and expect feedback from 
alliance interop testing (or indeed from any form of interop testing) as 
it hardly benefits alliance members if this information is not 
propagated back into the IETF.

Robert

Robert Cragie (Pacific Gas & Electric)

Gridmerge Ltd.
89 Greenfield Crescent,
Wakefield, WF4 4WA, UK
+44 (0) 1924 910888
http://www.gridmerge.com <http://www.gridmerge.com/>

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:20:10 -0700

On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:43 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:

>> I'd like to state my surprise that a "closed-door-no-transparency-interop-event" is organized, and allowed to be run, during an IETF meeting -- otherwise the cathedral of open processes.....
>> 
> 
> Do not blame me for that ... The IPSO alliance organized an RPL interop event during the IETF week.

No blame -- it's just a question of whether we (as a WG) should try to push IPSO to be more open. At the very least, a bake-off once -08 (with resolution of DAOs, flow labels, etc.) is released seems like a good idea.

Phil

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:23:43 -0700

On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Robert Cragie wrote:

> I would just like to add that alliances like IPSO and ZigBee have a primary role in conformance testing and the aim of the interops is to support conformance testing. Therefore PICS and test plans are developed alongside the specifications to achieve this. The interops have to be controlled or else nothing would be achieved in them. It is highly unlikely that anyone just turning up with a platform which hadn't been developed in accordance with the additional PICS and test plans would have managed to do any useful interop with other platforms; indeed it is likely to be disruptive for the alliance members moving towards conformance, even in these early stages.

But Robert, the IETF has a history of open inter-op events; I think this history has shown that the concerns above are really not an issue. This mentality comes from closed, industrial consortia, which the IETF is not. You want some kind of gating function so we don't waste people's time, but things like NDAs and pay-to-play really don't lead to the best standards.

Phil

---

From: "Don Sturek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:38:55 -0700

Hi Phil,

I think Roberts point is that to deploy products, using IETF standards such
as ROLL, industry defined mandatory/optional features and test
plans/certification are needed.  This leads to creation of paid-membership
industry groups like IPSO and ZigBee to support the commercial aspects of
deployment (testing, labeling, etc).

Have a look at the WiFi Alliance for an example.  No one could say this
group led to poor standards.  We all used WiFi at the IETF event!  However,
groups like WiFi charge membership fees, create industry standards based on
IETF RFCs, certify to subsets of IETF standards.  I would expect there to be
membership fees associated with this.

Personally, I welcome input from groups like this.  I think the IETF
standards profit from having these groups report back (I would prefer this
to them taking IETF standards and creating "one off" versions)

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Philip Levis
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Roll] * closing * Re: IPSO Interop event - Feed-back welcome

primary role in conformance testing and the aim of the interops is to
support conformance testing. Therefore PICS and test plans are developed
alongside the specifications to achieve this. The interops have to be
controlled or else nothing would be achieved in them. It is highly unlikely
that anyone just turning up with a platform which hadn't been developed in
accordance with the additional PICS and test plans would have managed to do
any useful interop with other platforms; indeed it is likely to be
disruptive for the alliance members moving towards conformance, even in
these early stages.

But Robert, the IETF has a history of open inter-op events; I think this
history has shown that the concerns above are really not an issue. This
mentality comes from closed, industrial consortia, which the IETF is not.
You want some kind of gating function so we don't waste people's time, but
things like NDAs and pay-to-play really don't lead to the best standards.

Phil

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:02:42 -0400

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Cragie <[email-masked]> writes:
    Robert> I would just like to add that alliances like IPSO and ZigBee
    Robert> have a primary role in conformance testing and the aim of
    Robert> the interops is to support conformance testing. Therefore
    Robert> PICS and test plans are developed alongside the
    Robert> specifications to achieve this. The interops have to be
    Robert> controlled or else nothing would be achieved in them. It is
    Robert> highly unlikely that anyone just turning up with a platform
    Robert> which hadn't been developed in accordance with the
    Robert> additional PICS and test plans would have managed to do any
    Robert> useful interop with other platforms; indeed it is likely to
    Robert> be disruptive for the alliance members moving towards
    Robert> conformance, even in these early stages.

Yes, and entirely appropriate that the list be told about such events
and organizations in sufficient time that we can join the appropriate
organizations, and make plans to show up at the right places at the
right places.

This is what I am complaining about.

-- 
]       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.