From nobody Tue Dec 1 13:29:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99841A01A1; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:29:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A_qS2112CzB9; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:29:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49ABB1A0178; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:28:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by lfdl133 with SMTP id l133so26249966lfd.2; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:28:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=9dzQ/1rWBtIA4SDuCiHErWSnuqfrXQmZA33BWem0FVA=; b=kEFx2zZ45nDfJ8ncXkUC2uVbuj9+FIe6jfQaXPRwN37XomRy1Y1apfHgkRHXx+aF4g e7+HCU3r2D9amjarUCYecibgfmCdXsSdhzVCS/gABoTjlhaVRQhBOpBePSnuuEzadnWK hET1SWQ1LTSz1C74JCRc7w/BgqPGmP4dH0wjL4zi+skjClx41uEXfZeT6IvalNBPUmOh fvSbdf9VpgIxljbXMgndzp7yRFlPtj8nmy5dLUKVCp0EjGNrNCxfGtM5qolIbOw3qFQD UQpNEodF2QbGLz8c2ziklGcJ2ZSE9JxueT9ygOVpeCsZhtCo9gyDSycTfLSJyS92o3Sn AmuA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.126.106 with SMTP id mx10mr23870435lbb.3.1449005336403; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:28:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.151.78 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:28:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:28:56 +0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: "6lo@ietf.org WG" <6lo@ietf.org>, roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c37a8e5aa6860525dcd813 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] 6lo Digest, Vol 31, Issue 18 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:29:09 -0000 --001a11c37a8e5aa6860525dcd813 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I support this adoption. Few nits: - it would be nice to have a definition for sur-compression, - expand NALP (it was in version 3.3 v. 06) - In section 6 I think instead of "If a non-RPL router receives a packet with a RPI-6LoRH" would be RH3-6LoRH? - Section 6: "otherwise is is expressed in full" --> "otherwise it is expressed in full" - an specialized ---> a specialized - a I flag --> an I flag? Thanks, Ines. 2015-11-17 22:07 GMT+02:00 <6lo-request@ietf.org>: > > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > From: Gabriel Montenegro > > All, > > > > This starts a 6lo Working Group adoption call for the following draft: > > > > A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch/ > > > > This draft solves a problem for ROLL, namely that of compression of RPL > artifacts. It also appears to be extensible enough that it could be usefu= l > for other scenarios, especially after discussions at IETF 93 in Prague > (context switch approach) and confirmation at IETF 94 in Yokohama. > > > > > This document is intended as standards-track. > > > > Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D) = to the mailing list on adopting > this document as a 6lo WG document. > > > > This call will end at 00:00 UTC on December 1, 2015. > > > > Regards, > > Chairs > > > > > --001a11c37a8e5aa6860525dcd813 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

I support this adoption.=

Few nits:

- it would be = nice to have a definition for sur-compression,

- e= xpand NALP (it was in version 3.3 v. 06)

- In sect= ion 6 I think instead of "If a non-RPL router receives a packet with a= RPI-6LoRH" would be RH3-6LoRH?

- Section 6: = "otherwise is is expressed in full" --> "otherwise it is = expressed in full"

- an specialized ---> a= specialized

- a I flag --> an I flag?


Thanks,

Ines.
2015-11-17 22:= 07 GMT+02:00 <6lo-request@ietf.org>:

---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
From:=C2=A0Ga= briel Montenegro <Ga= briel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>

All,

=C2=A0

This starts a 6lo Working Group adoption call for the following draft:

=C2=A0

A Routing Header Dispatch for = 6LoWPAN

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6= lo-routing-dispatch/

=C2=A0

This draft solves a problem for ROLL, namely that of compression of RPL = artifacts. It also appears to be extensible enough that it could be useful = for other scenarios, especially after discussions at IETF 93 in Prague (con= text switch approach) and confirmation at IETF 94 in Yokohama.

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0

This document is intended as standards-track.

=C2=A0

Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D)= to the mailing list on adopting this document as a 6lo WG document.

=C2=A0

This call will end at 00:00 UTC on December 1, 2015.

=C2=A0

Regards,

Chairs

=C2=A0



--001a11c37a8e5aa6860525dcd813-- From nobody Wed Dec 2 04:00:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D91B1A88AD; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 04:00:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WnfvLP1pmZwz; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 04:00:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D6641A88AC; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 04:00:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by lfdl133 with SMTP id l133so46996829lfd.2; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 04:00:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=i1IlDK1WwIu3G3vsRRIa99a7bRX6+jvghTmqsdit6SQ=; b=0IiHEHGksaCi/TSBoh5VfTpyF7GvI1cFUf1P1IfFeABzlHVYl0RdDSbzId6/nLiZUx gx+cMM9MaovrPc9jIC2WwaVVd5Z+XXGbUGcUyZaiHJXNuKmUnVRRWWPdh+hYqR9rrH+P NTJpFWjfJoy1cuRJad5HISGwspYYAuApaFnioCHmSzPv9Djy5saSUtWcYrzzygg8AbBg mniV0+5R5PcKjdTViZo/tpxHAelD5fH799hSTICaTg/uLz5iRXeCn7jXjQA2ARL7abg3 t6EBWGSinxoOqov7TOJ54l6J1PHIyUmCVQcTmq22JsOQA3lN7RRUiS9vjxhMQzNF5qo8 2lrQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.99.4 with SMTP id em4mr2156702lbb.87.1449057625529; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 04:00:25 -0800 (PST) Sender: robert.cragie@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.156.75 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 04:00:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <339867217aca4830a2f7b2611ce5652a@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> References: <339867217aca4830a2f7b2611ce5652a@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:00:25 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: qZhzqI3oYPKTUy0CAQYUj-mzCyY Message-ID: From: Robert Cragie To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11340c9a0767bd0525e90533 Archived-At: Cc: Samita Chakrabarti , Gabriel Montenegro , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Call for Adoption for draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:00:29 -0000 --001a11340c9a0767bd0525e90533 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry for the late response - I also agree that a split would be a good idea. Robert On 19 November 2015 at 17:02, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Dear Samita: > > > > I agree that the split is a good idea. That way, ROLL can concentrate on > the compression of the RPL artifacts themselves while 6lo has more focus = on > the paging mechanism. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Pascal > > > > *From:* 6lo [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Samita > Chakrabarti > *Sent:* mercredi 18 novembre 2015 08:06 > *To:* Gabriel Montenegro ; 6lo@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [6lo] Call for Adoption for > draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch > > > > As a WG member, I support the adoption of this document. > > > > With chair hat on =E2=80=93 after adoption it would be good to make a dec= ision > whether we should split the document into two. One for generic non-ESC > dispatch specification and the 2nd one is for RPL specific definition of > the non-ESC dispatch. That way, in future any 6lo usecase that wants to u= se > the non-ESC dispatch specification can follow the generic document. > > > > Regards, > > -Samita > > > > *From:* Gabriel Montenegro [mailto:Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 17, 2015 12:07 PM > *To:* 6lo@ietf.org > *Cc:* Samita Chakrabarti > *Subject:* Call for Adoption for draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch > > > > All, > > > > This starts a 6lo Working Group adoption call for the following draft: > > > > A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch/ > > > > This draft solves a problem for ROLL, namely that of compression of RPL > artifacts. It also appears to be extensible enough that it could be usefu= l > for other scenarios, especially after discussions at IETF 93 in Prague > (context switch approach) and confirmation at IETF 94 in Yokohama. > > > > > This document is intended as standards-track. > > > > Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D) = to the mailing list on adopting > this document as a 6lo WG document. > > > > This call will end at 00:00 UTC on December 1, 2015. > > > > Regards, > > Chairs > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --001a11340c9a0767bd0525e90533 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry for the late response - I also agree that a split wo= uld be a good idea.

Robert

On 19 November 2015 at 17:02, Pasca= l Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

Dear Samita:=

=C2=A0

I agree that the split= is a good idea. That way, ROLL can concentrate on the compression of the R= PL artifacts themselves while 6lo has more focus on the paging mechanism.

=C2=A0

Cheers,=

=C2= =A0

Pascal<= /u>

=C2=A0

From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] <= b>On Behalf Of Samita Chakrabarti
Sent: mercredi 18 novembre 2015 08:06
To: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>; 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] Call for Adoption for draft-thubert-6lo-ro= uting-dispatch

=C2=A0

As a WG member, I supp= ort the adoption of this document.

=C2=A0

With chair hat on =E2= =80=93 after adoption it would be good to make a decision whether we should= split the document into two. One for generic non-ESC dispatch specificatio= n and the 2nd one is for RPL specific definition of the non-ESC dispatch. That way, in future any 6lo usecase th= at wants to use the non-ESC dispatch specification can follow the generic d= ocument.

=C2=A0

Regards,=

-Samita<= /span>

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

All,

=C2=A0

This starts a 6lo Working Group adoption ca= ll for the following draft:

=C2=A0

A= Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN

https://datatracker= .ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch/

=C2=A0

This draft solves a problem for ROLL, namel= y that of compression of RPL artifacts. It also appears to be extensible en= ough that it could be useful for other scenarios, especially after discussi= ons at IETF 93 in Prague (context switch approach) and confirmation at IETF 94 in Yokoham= a.

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0

This document is intended as standards-trac= k.

=C2=A0

Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2= =80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D) to the mailing list on adopting this docume= nt as a 6lo WG document.

=C2=A0

This call will end at 00:00 UTC on December= 1, 2015.

=C2=A0

Regards,

Chairs

=C2=A0


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


--001a11340c9a0767bd0525e90533-- From nobody Fri Dec 11 06:56:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietf.org Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A711AD05E for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:56:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151211145614.27676.90410.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:56:14 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Milestones changed for roll WG X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:56:14 -0000 Changed milestone "Evaluate WG progress, recharter or close", set due date to January 2016 from November 2015. Changed milestone "Submit draft about when to use RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation to the IESG.", set due date to April 2016 from August 2015, added draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo to milestone. Changed milestone "Submit draft about how to compress RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer context to the IESG.", set due date to May 2016 from November 2015, added draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch to milestone. URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ From nobody Fri Dec 11 07:01:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C0A1ADBFA for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:01:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rzsUWX3tD0pj for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 632C51AD0CF for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbbcs9 with SMTP id cs9so71731915lbb.1 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:01:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=X6YH7CNipPtNGlu3ezRNIglxHDxgGRndCwaLMpcTOF4=; b=qYpycK56h7zOp3o6k2gVfNHkkAJek70ebHCUspGJekf+tUuj4SaNhYM88V1Km+DqYH BlQLGN/7JawxEj997oYlj4I22ERGvYg61Sm61ZSZrA/GHEPPj/5Lu9CwL8897PIKmLf5 Uf0MHk8Y3BRxkEduMiP3l3Fvq3bSb3GY5FejrVjtMJL5nAw3De/HOMGuHrmRpGlnkRkV 00YQOQM5K2db5GOzbySmNI+JEWxRzA8Qz1JbQL4VK9RocuSAFvnLJm0yblHL2c84cuhz ZjvWNfCZwTkDvimpOZR1Va/AsOgrEiBcuTtkhxtx2wpB3z2vEyeUM90LDdUD47M4ZsRl 0Tiw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.77.194 with SMTP id u2mr7851892lbw.62.1449846075559; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:01:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.151.78 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:01:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:01:15 +0200 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3d4ca5016ce0526a09868 Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:01:19 -0000 --001a11c3d4ca5016ce0526a09868 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear all: We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charter [ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us know your opinion about this. If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let us know as well. Charter proposed might be: RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful deployments. Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the data plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as well as the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism. The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL protocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 to Internet Standard. Thank you very much, Michael and Ines. --001a11c3d4ca5016ce0526a09868 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all:


We propose the following tex= t to replace the current (much longer) charter [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter= /], please let us know your opinion about this.


If yo= u think that other specific topic should be included, please let us know as= well.


Charter proposed might be:


RFC 6= 550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful deployments.

Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in t= he data plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as w= ell as the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism.

The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the= RPL protocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 t= o Internet Standard.


Thank you very much,


<= span style=3D"font-size:14.6666666666667px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,= 0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparen= t">Michael and Ines.
--001a11c3d4ca5016ce0526a09868-- From nobody Fri Dec 11 07:57:28 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1321B2B89 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:57:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rKVzdohUSdu3 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:57:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2597A1B2B7E for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:57:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1E42002A for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:03:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2F863795 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:57:22 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: roll@ietf.org X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] FYI -- rfc-editor revisions to draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-03.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:57:27 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain The draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy is in RFC-editor queue, and the editor had some difficulties with some of the sentences and there was some significant back and forth with the authors to make sure the sense was correct. I want to first publically thank Lynne Bartholomew, Peter van der Stok and Robert Craigie for their perseverance on this. This "short" document is now two years in the making, in part due to queuing issues with trickle-mcast, etc. These are the changes that will be made, and I hope I got the last set of them! I am posting this in order to determine that there are no *serious* and VERY *significant* objections. We have been through this many times already. Michael and Ines. Original: o The message carries an MPL option (MPL message) and the incoming MPL interface is subscribed to the destination multicast address. o The message does not carry an MPL option, the multicast address is unequal to ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS scope 4 or scope 3, and the interface has expressed interest to receive messages with the specified multicast address via MLD [RFC3810] or via IGMP [RFC3376]. The message was sent on according to PIM-DM [RFC3973] or according to PIM-SM [RFC4601]. Replace by : o The message carries an MPL option (MPL message) and the incoming MPL interface is subscribed to the destination multicast address. [MCR: unchanged, I think] o The message does not carry an MPL option and the interface has expressed interest to receive messages with the specified multicast address via MLD [RFC3810] or via IGMP [RFC3376]. The message was sent on according to PIM-DM [RFC3973] or according to PIM-SM [RFC4601]. ============= Original: Two types of legal multicast messages are considered: (1) MPL messages, and (2) multicast messages which do not carry the MPL option Replace by: Two types of legal multicast messages are considered in Section 4.1: (1) MPL messages, and (2) multicast messages which do not carry the MPL option ============= Original: o MPL messages with a multicast scope of 5 or higher MUST encapsulate a message with the same multicast address without MPL option. The decapsulated message can be forwarded over an interface when the interface is subscribed with MLD to the same multicast address. Replace by: o MPL messages which encapsulate a message with a multicast scope of 5 or higher are decapsulated and forwarded over the interface when the interface is subscribed to the multicast address of the decapsulated message. ============= Original: o Link-local (scope 2) messages or realm-local (scope 3) multicast messages are not forwarded. o Admin-local (scope 4) multicast messages are encapsulated with a header carrying the MPL option and are forwarded on al MPL interfaces that are subscribed to the multicast address, have the same zone index, have PROACTIVE_FORWARDING set to true, and have MPL_BLOCKED set to false. Replace by: o Link-local (scope 2), realm-local (scope 3) and admin-local (scope 4) multicast messages are not forwarded. ============= Original: o Multicast messages with a multicast scope of 5 or higher are encapsulated with a header carrying the MPL option and are forwarded on al MPL interfaces that are subscribed to the multicast address, have PROACTIVE_FORWARDING set to true, and have MPL_BLOCKED set to false. In addition these messages follow the Multicast forwarding rules as specified by PIM [RFC3973], [RFC4601] according to group specifications enabled by MLD [RFC3810] or IGMP [RFC3376]. Replace by: o Multicast messages with a multicast scope of 5 or higher are encapsulated in a MPL message with destination address ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS scope 4. The resulting message is then treated as described in section 4.2.1. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVmryX4CLcPvd0N1lAQJh7Qf+MQm2F27UH1ijZLNrmrjqZPK+bbEJETiw ah7nY3ZXMmgYIgwpE01e42FPHhWxbwUI241GY8COFTy2p4hBMdxszJ21gL0r+pom RqEj3ZGj+z5Wt+4gi9vk32nFOm10sgdXJChvzgGJMwOf8ikiQBL+ILCC4IIsYBbC qU3cpJjBgj9t3i+H7jgjtDJTxl2sg8+rst5JcFwzxYElvehUS5nYrhxr5hysK0Y/ EFBFDfE76zhC+szwCJzwsPL1tqbBoVefh6hjLfjjewqQj0y1t2cTXiVajC7Qd789 KRaXV+Foz5OjMOrLf0dTb4gIqceLRO1AsEST5Efj8CHEsiTWvDYbeQ== =fXyd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Fri Dec 11 08:25:11 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7981B2BC8 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:25:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MKJc8u4rjsHP for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:25:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EBDD1B2A5A for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:25:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so77339876wme.1 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:25:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fbk-eu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=pLVIwsq3MsZOgaHGOFgoLn4xYmcLApCTOXxboVDyaPs=; b=vCP//1Sof3XUzI5SNkztGMFh7sdUIpkzJpk4WS2vnbW3pBMdGd67SVC/3ytnLNmZjQ xSkrUiuXB+eI9rrHU8CF7Uow1vghgQS0r7U+O7Nytl/cepgHMu7dNWmSB2JikAdzi0zT Unq1fVdhpamCbWy17u4VsZknY5ax6KDCITawJcA4HPV4L5E3QM6qCNWC7+8VmuOk2OjG XEbyAG7rJMu598Ebq4vKOwjqn+rL3I19CuJpdQ7RwJXhsj7TOOGaTi8D0k192eYTkSP6 3x9VxkmfXcK+Ai4GBA1LswY5kUhTZzT5abWLxg+QddGzZWL3LwHBADod7pXQCIaHHgfM IHXg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=pLVIwsq3MsZOgaHGOFgoLn4xYmcLApCTOXxboVDyaPs=; b=htbZE0jTf16RHC4TzSi5GnjVjSNz6Cih4SFp5S2iNYpnNi6HO+mIXCSP+cGiWPlZg8 nv3iY5De13Ep/mKYTEY8NHu2/GTGI7KoKviA0vLTc5HbKRhaNdxC3OQQx6jvsnmYDpoR +8xWZMcIYxnVKw9hSx4rXEapThXh5BmFGKTNeJAa9cJYISxft+kh/Wt5JWgonOlNohLQ qGD92+hhJ+vOcVopiMRzFRhlpSOiaCpAqcOggd3cnLE06tJBF11UXDjLU/6BXIS3i8NP /leqsY4PNEINbRV2GOb56ol9M9oOU5FTc+VrAVjn8e2J7yOSHHwH71SEX2U0k4XoD9zB cLkg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmAQKy6IQzKSUNn6l/1oPb58mIyUBIfO9Oz4jgPYZaKqtsQiz9ckgqYgZxAUe3aCkz7t3SjQdmuVBwfir85sCcOvZWTIZr5lp6ANT6QKOdZbCc7eau4RIehpV/BfnQXmkRmzkCuUlNcaK/UxesQm63zPIybCItC1buDFTVd3SDzueyOsY0= X-Received: by 10.28.217.139 with SMTP id q133mr7350550wmg.3.1449851105249; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:25:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cskiralys-MacBook-Air.local (outusers14.fbk.eu. [217.77.82.237]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id an7sm17636078wjc.44.2015.12.11.08.25.03 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:25:04 -0800 (PST) To: roll@ietf.org References: From: Csaba Kiraly Message-ID: <566AF8DE.6070504@fbk.eu> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:25:02 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070604010004090503020208" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:25:09 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070604010004090503020208 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ines, With Joakim we are working on DAO-ACK semantics and syntax changes, aiming both to clarify DAO-ACK related parts of RFC 6550, as well as to make storing mode operation more reliable and scalable. The draft is still in its infancy, but the topic might worth adding to the charter. Regards, Csaba On 11/12/15 16:01, Ines Robles wrote: > > Dear all: > > > We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) > charter [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us > know your opinion about this. > > > If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let > us know as well. > > > Charter proposed might be: > > > RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful > deployments. > > Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the > data plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as > well as the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism. > > The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL > protocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 > to Internet Standard. > > > Thank you very much, > > > Michael and Ines. > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll --------------070604010004090503020208 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ines,

With Joakim we are working on DAO-ACK semantics and syntax changes, aiming both to clarify DAO-ACK related parts of RFC 6550, as well as to make storing mode operation more reliable and scalable.
The draft is still in its infancy, but the topic might worth adding to the charter.

Regards,
Csaba

On 11/12/15 16:01, Ines Robles wrote:

Dear all:


We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charter [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us know your opinion about this.


If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let us know as well.


Charter proposed might be:


RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful deployments.

Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the data plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as well as the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism.

The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL protocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 to Internet Standard.


Thank you very much,


Michael and Ines.


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

--------------070604010004090503020208-- From nobody Fri Dec 11 08:31:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5390F1B2CDE for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:31:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.176 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kqXSbcN6TYIo for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722041B2CE2 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com ([10.30.71.139]) by atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBBGVLQu013128; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:31:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:31:21 -0500 (EST) From: Randy Turner To: Ines Robles , Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Medium X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.6.2-Rev35 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Randy Turner , Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:31:25 -0000

Hi Ines,

We might want to consider rolling items fro= m 6553, 6551, etc. back into an overall “RPL Protocol” RFC R= 11; not everything, but items that we have found in implementation to be a = requirement for a workable RPL implementation.

It would make it easie= r for implementers to have fewer docs to read and understand – I coul= d come up with a few examples in a future email. Some of what I'm talki= ng about would be the IP-in-IP stuff, as well as extension headers.  <= /p>

Also, I would like to consider other options for routing besides stri= ctly storing and non-storing, or mixed storing/non-storing

Also, re-v= isiting the recent DAO/DAO-ACK discussions and possibly clarifying behavior= (as alluded to by Csaba in an earlier email)

Randy

On December 11, 2015 at 10:01 AM Ines Robles <mariaines= robles@googlemail.com> wrote:


<= /span>

Dear all:

<= span>

We pro= pose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charter [https://datatracker.ie= tf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us know your opinion about this.


If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let u= s know as well.


Charter proposed might be:


<= /span>

RFC 6550 was publishe= d in 2012, and has seen several successful deployments.

Over time, additional issues have come up, = including issues in the data plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how t= o compress them, as well as the standardization of a mixed storing/non-stor= ing mechanism.

The WG is= chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL protocol, wit= h the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 to Internet Standar= d.


Thank you very much,


Michael and Ines.
_______= ________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.= org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


&#= 160;

From nobody Fri Dec 11 09:47:54 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7921A8F3F for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:47:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.509 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12A4dSOiibYO for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:47:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93CE1A905A for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:47:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10902; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1449856071; x=1451065671; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=6oLx44KyktPjvbCoYy2zwwkePDJQSndYezYnm+tJZEM=; b=dhBYRo8TFZY2063Mq7Dci6f3DEndb+vR6McKX1coFgm4S18GazflS3Oa uX58I+LqpT7+V2AZpsTIri54BoDf70noxzaSBrwhkBUIqUHy+9/H/2sAS YfuFDonzyNEzMCWYRzEbu7NJ5akXO+TPTO2icPugsVYEHvP8rdqXFLPvW Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AFAgBwC2tW/5ldJa1egm5MU24GvSkBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFiIYVuAhyBFDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEEIwpMEAIBCBEEAQEoAwICAjAUCQg?= =?us-ascii?q?CBA4FCIgnDa0NkW8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEUBIZWhH2EH2kJgmaBS?= =?us-ascii?q?QWTAoNwAYU0iAiBYoRFkn2DcgEfAQFChARyhF6BBwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.20,414,1444694400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="57529465" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Dec 2015 17:47:50 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBBHlob8002801 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:47:50 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:47:50 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:47:50 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHRNCTVvaexu6PumU2Lt0rgD1As157GDsHw Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:47:31 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:46:40 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.61.173.102] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d176b79c1f4b46f3ae144bd03c5ec94eXCHRCD001ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:47:53 -0000 --_000_d176b79c1f4b46f3ae144bd03c5ec94eXCHRCD001ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGVsbG8gSW5lcw0KDQpJIGxpa2UgdGhlIHByb3Bvc2FsIGJlY2F1c2UgaXQgaXMgb3BlbiBlbm91 Z2ggdG8gaW5jbHVkZSB0aGUgdmFyaW91cyBpdGVtcyB3ZSBkaXNjdXNzZWQgcmVjZW50bHkuIEdy ZWF0IHdvcmshDQoNCknigJltIGluICBmdWxsIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIHRoaXMgcHJvcG9zYWwgYXMg eW91IG1heSBoYXZlIGd1ZXNzZWQsDQoNClBhc2NhbA0KDQpGcm9tOiBSb2xsIFttYWlsdG86cm9s bC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgSW5lcyBSb2JsZXMNClNlbnQ6IHZlbmRy ZWRpIDExIGTDqWNlbWJyZSAyMDE1IDE2OjAxDQpUbzogcm9sbCA8cm9sbEBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCkNj OiBNaWNoYWVsIFJpY2hhcmRzb24gPG1jcitpZXRmQHNhbmRlbG1hbi5jYT4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFtS b2xsXSBOZXcgcHJvcG9zZWQgY2hhcnRlcg0KDQoNCg0KRGVhciBhbGw6DQoNCg0KV2UgcHJvcG9z ZSB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHRleHQgdG8gcmVwbGFjZSB0aGUgY3VycmVudCAobXVjaCBsb25nZXIp IGNoYXJ0ZXIgW2h0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvd2cvcm9sbC9jaGFydGVyL10s IHBsZWFzZSBsZXQgdXMga25vdyB5b3VyIG9waW5pb24gYWJvdXQgdGhpcy4NCg0KDQpJZiB5b3Ug dGhpbmsgdGhhdCBvdGhlciBzcGVjaWZpYyB0b3BpYyBzaG91bGQgYmUgaW5jbHVkZWQsIHBsZWFz ZSBsZXQgdXMga25vdyBhcyB3ZWxsLg0KDQoNCkNoYXJ0ZXIgcHJvcG9zZWQgbWlnaHQgYmU6DQoN Cg0KUkZDIDY1NTAgd2FzIHB1Ymxpc2hlZCBpbiAyMDEyLCBhbmQgaGFzIHNlZW4gc2V2ZXJhbCBz dWNjZXNzZnVsIGRlcGxveW1lbnRzLg0KDQpPdmVyIHRpbWUsIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgaXNzdWVzIGhh dmUgY29tZSB1cCwgaW5jbHVkaW5nIGlzc3VlcyBpbiB0aGUgZGF0YSBwbGFuZSBvZiB3aGVuIHRv IHVzZSBJUGluSVAgaGVhZGVycywgYW5kIGhvdyB0byBjb21wcmVzcyB0aGVtLCBhcyB3ZWxsIGFz IHRoZSBzdGFuZGFyZGl6YXRpb24gb2YgYSBtaXhlZCBzdG9yaW5nL25vbi1zdG9yaW5nIG1lY2hh bmlzbS4NCg0KVGhlIFdHIGlzIGNoYXJ0ZXJlZCB0byBsb29rIGF0IGVuaGFuY2VtZW50cyBhbmQg bWFpbnRlbmFuY2UgdG8gdGhlIFJQTCBwcm90b2NvbCwgd2l0aCB0aGUgYWltIG9mIGV2ZW50dWFs bHkgcmV2aXNpbmcgYW5kIGFkdmFuY2luZyBSRkMgNjU1MCB0byBJbnRlcm5ldCBTdGFuZGFyZC4N Cg0KDQpUaGFuayB5b3UgdmVyeSBtdWNoLA0KDQpNaWNoYWVsIGFuZCBJbmVzLg0K --_000_d176b79c1f4b46f3ae144bd03c5ec94eXCHRCD001ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTUgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0IDUgMyA1IDQgNiAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1m YWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAy IDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWws IGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBjbTsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJ Zm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIixzZXJpZjt9 DQphOmxpbmssIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCglj b2xvcjpibHVlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBzcGFu Lk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpw dXJwbGU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpwDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlv cml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGNtOw0K CW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBjbTsNCglmb250LXNp emU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLHNlcmlmO30NCnNwYW4u RW1haWxTdHlsZTE4DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmOw0KCWNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1 bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglm b250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7 c2l6ZTo2MTIuMHB0IDc5Mi4wcHQ7DQoJbWFyZ2luOjcwLjg1cHQgNzAuODVwdCA3MC44NXB0IDcw Ljg1cHQ7fQ0KZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0 eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRp dCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5 XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVk aXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+DQo8L2hl YWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgbGluaz0iYmx1ZSIgdmxpbms9InB1cnBsZSI+DQo8ZGl2 IGNsYXNzPSJXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEiPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNl cmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPkhlbGxvIEluZXM8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBj bGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWls eTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+PG86cD4mbmJz cDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlm O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPkkgbGlrZSB0aGUgcHJvcG9zYWwgYmVjYXVzZSBpdCBpcyBvcGVuIGVu b3VnaCB0byBpbmNsdWRlIHRoZSB2YXJpb3VzIGl0ZW1zIHdlIGRpc2N1c3NlZCByZWNlbnRseS4g R3JlYXQgd29yayE8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1 b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPkni gJltIGluJm5ic3A7IGZ1bGwgc3VwcG9ydCBmb3IgdGhpcyBwcm9wb3NhbCBhcyB5b3UgbWF5IGhh dmUgZ3Vlc3NlZCw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1 b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPlBh c2NhbDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fu cy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2 IHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6bm9uZTtib3JkZXItbGVmdDpzb2xpZCBibHVlIDEuNXB0O3BhZGRpbmc6 MGNtIDBjbSAwY20gNC4wcHQiPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRl ci10b3A6c29saWQgI0UxRTFFMSAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBjbSAwY20gMGNtIj4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxz cGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVv dDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+IFJvbGwgW21haWx0bzpyb2xsLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQo8Yj5P biBCZWhhbGYgT2YgPC9iPkluZXMgUm9ibGVzPGJyPg0KPGI+U2VudDo8L2I+IHZlbmRyZWRpIDEx IGTDqWNlbWJyZSAyMDE1IDE2OjAxPGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiByb2xsICZsdDtyb2xsQGlldGYu b3JnJmd0Ozxicj4NCjxiPkNjOjwvYj4gTWljaGFlbCBSaWNoYXJkc29uICZsdDttY3ImIzQzO2ll dGZAc2FuZGVsbWFuLmNhJmd0Ozxicj4NCjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBbUm9sbF0gTmV3IHByb3Bv c2VkIGNoYXJ0ZXI8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luOjBjbTttYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiZxdW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPkRlYXIgYWxsOjwv c3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9v OnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbjowY207bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ij48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90Oyxz YW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5XZSBwcm9wb3NlIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgdGV4dCB0byBy ZXBsYWNlIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IChtdWNoIGxvbmdlcikgY2hhcnRlciBbPC9zcGFuPjxhIGhyZWY9 Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvd2cvcm9sbC9jaGFydGVyLyI+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1z ZXJpZiI+aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy93Zy9yb2xsL2NoYXJ0ZXIvPC9zcGFu PjwvYT48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlh bCZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5dLA0KIHBsZWFzZSBsZXQgdXMga25vdyB5 b3VyIG9waW5pb24gYWJvdXQgdGhpcy48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW46MGNtO21h cmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+SWYgeW91IHRo aW5rIHRoYXQgb3RoZXIgc3BlY2lmaWMgdG9waWMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGluY2x1ZGVkLCBwbGVhc2Ug bGV0IHVzIGtub3cgYXMgd2VsbC48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW46MGNtO21hcmdp bi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6JnF1b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+Q2hhcnRlciBwcm9w b3NlZCBtaWdodCBiZTo8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFs Ij48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW46MGNtO21hcmdpbi1ib3R0 b206LjAwMDFwdCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1 b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+UkZDIDY1NTAgd2FzIHB1Ymxp c2hlZCBpbiAyMDEyLCBhbmQgaGFzIHNlZW4gc2V2ZXJhbCBzdWNjZXNzZnVsIGRlcGxveW1lbnRz Ljwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW46MGNtO21hcmdpbi1ib3R0 b206LjAwMDFwdCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1 b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+T3ZlciB0aW1lLCBhZGRpdGlv bmFsIGlzc3VlcyBoYXZlIGNvbWUgdXAsIGluY2x1ZGluZyBpc3N1ZXMgaW4gdGhlIGRhdGEgcGxh bmUgb2Ygd2hlbiB0byB1c2UgSVBpbklQIGhlYWRlcnMsIGFuZCBob3cgdG8gY29tcHJlc3MgdGhl bSwgYXMgd2VsbA0KIGFzIHRoZSBzdGFuZGFyZGl6YXRpb24gb2YgYSBtaXhlZCBzdG9yaW5nL25v bi1zdG9yaW5nIG1lY2hhbmlzbS4gPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgc3R5bGU9Im1h cmdpbjowY207bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ij48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEx LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNr Ij5UaGUgV0cgaXMgY2hhcnRlcmVkIHRvIGxvb2sgYXQgZW5oYW5jZW1lbnRzIGFuZCBtYWludGVu YW5jZSB0byB0aGUgUlBMIHByb3RvY29sLCB3aXRoIHRoZSBhaW0gb2YgZXZlbnR1YWxseSByZXZp c2luZyBhbmQgYWR2YW5jaW5nIFJGQyA2NTUwDQogdG8gSW50ZXJuZXQgU3RhbmRhcmQuPC9zcGFu PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48 L3A+DQo8cCBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luOjBjbTttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQiPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMt c2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPlRoYW5rIHlvdSB2ZXJ5IG11Y2gsPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTox MS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpibGFj ayI+TWljaGFlbCBhbmQgSW5lcy48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_d176b79c1f4b46f3ae144bd03c5ec94eXCHRCD001ciscocom_-- From nobody Fri Dec 11 10:12:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D63091A92F1 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:12:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sdhek1yBpvhp for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:12:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x22c.google.com (mail-qg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3E8E1A92EB for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:12:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by qgcc31 with SMTP id c31so203717587qgc.3 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:12:39 -0800 (PST) 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 :content-type; bh=aKi0qfGbXhABwW21s76OdmX2uJm9EwuyU2RLXfIhqfg=; b=Gvhe5eHVU/75LheRLfA7mlnVh/uSC2sb8oydZp004aPSO3sQk+OgqqW7xDGYKLhI2s MoQX2dOWc/sGibe71AZPAlOnQQlkEgIyy9FyC3lyBpzrHQXEaZeNqeYtacqS+Xl2DXld UlOfwqioYUk/tzb5wlLvYp0OBFvzePQWZvGSAjy52yy351ZBwGLg5MP4s3rW4IXzTn76 4OLb+0n7zm3jRoJ75Zg5/GOfMKz3l+nrvlV06rx7FXrnEcK9RAGGiYVist13+edFsdjR vfXXa70BeB1frmJpHS3wvuXp/ozF7eWhQiU+7+lWNcx2SDlU0f4l0MNrZVUdu+ByP0kG c4og== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.141.2.86 with SMTP id e83mr17034939qhd.64.1449857559808; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:12:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.95.22 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:12:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:12:39 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a420ed3de8a0526a34451 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:12:43 -0000 --001a113a420ed3de8a0526a34451 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, I think we should not look only into enhancement of RPL but looking into one new proposed protocol (experimental). My question is why we only have one standard protocol for ROLL? we may need to look into different/new scenarios now, so YES we chosen the one routing RPL as a general purpose protocol for ROLL, now we need to do maintain RPL with its future work, but we also can now see special cases where we need new protocols for ROLL. We noticed that ROLL is more a special case of other routing protocols in the internet but still we didn't go for experimental drafts that cover special cases and implementations. AB University of Tripoli, On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > Hello Ines > > > > I like the proposal because it is open enough to include the various item= s > we discussed recently. Great work! > > > > I=E2=80=99m in full support for this proposal as you may have guessed, > > > > Pascal > > > > *From:* Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ines Robles > *Sent:* vendredi 11 d=C3=A9cembre 2015 16:01 > *To:* roll > *Cc:* Michael Richardson > *Subject:* [Roll] New proposed charter > > > > > > Dear all: > > > > We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charte= r > [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us know your > opinion about this. > > > > If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let us > know as well. > > > > Charter proposed might be: > > > > RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful > deployments. > > Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the data > plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as well as > the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism. > > The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL > protocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 to > Internet Standard. > > > > Thank you very much, > > > Michael and Ines. > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --001a113a420ed3de8a0526a34451 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All,

I think=C2=A0 we sho= uld not look only into enhancement of RPL but looking into one new proposed= protocol (experimental). My question is why we only have one standard prot= ocol for ROLL? we may need to look into different/new scenarios now, so YES= we chosen the one routing RPL as a general purpose protocol for ROLL, now = we need to do maintain RPL with its future work, but we also can now see sp= ecial cases where we need new protocols for ROLL. We noticed that ROLL is m= ore a special case of other routing protocols in the internet but still we = didn't go for experimental drafts that cover special cases and implemen= tations.

AB
University of Tripoli,


On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 a= t 7:47 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> w= rote:

Hello Ines

=C2=A0

I like the proposal because it is ope= n enough to include the various items we discussed recently. Great work!=

=C2=A0

I=E2=80=99m in=C2=A0 full support for= this proposal as you may have guessed,

=C2=A0

Pascal

=C2=A0

From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ines Robles
Sent: vendredi 11 d=C3=A9cembre 2015 16:01
To: roll <roll= @ietf.org>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: [Roll] New proposed charter

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Dear all:

=C2=A0

We propose the fol= lowing text to replace the current (much longer) charter [https://da= tatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us know your opinion about this.

=C2=A0

If you think that = other specific topic should be included, please let us know as well.=

=C2=A0

Charter proposed m= ight be:

=C2=A0

RFC 6550 was publi= shed in 2012, and has seen several successful deployments.=

Over time, additio= nal issues have come up, including issues in the data plane of when to use = IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as well as the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism.

The WG is chartere= d to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL protocol, with the aim= of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 to Internet Standard.

=C2=A0

Thank you very muc= h,


Michael and Ines.


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


--001a113a420ed3de8a0526a34451-- From nobody Fri Dec 11 13:20:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FE11A8AB6 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:20:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tpyZ_qesDrcp for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 851631A8AB2 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060C2E007 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:25:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAF363795 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:20:12 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: <566AF8DE.6070504@fbk.eu> References: <566AF8DE.6070504@fbk.eu> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:20:15 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Csaba Kiraly wrote: > With Joakim we are working on DAO-ACK semantics and syntax changes, > aiming both to clarify DAO-ACK related parts of RFC 6550, as well as to > make storing mode operation more reliable and scalable. The draft is > still in its infancy, but the topic might worth adding to the charter. The intention of the words: > The WG is chartered to look at ***enhancements*** and maintenance to the > RPL protocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC > 6550 to Internet Standard. Is to be inclusive of items such as you describe, without having to enumerate them. If we adopt a document, then it would get a milestone, etc, but we don't have to go back to the IESG for that. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVms+CICLcPvd0N1lAQKJzgf/WKiSwabF6+bzlKIFDTGPz/gf0jDgkMnD SlOVMpt8Zfr28c0epvTHAhX+v4YZGfgxgCn79sIfSsuuNyHjvfr0+yAQF7GrsgjF Z6cd6lSYIKhB4UKqBIOa8E39bdIdRQ71ovSS4d+UWYvjSJmyHnxsNX6YrN3jYeZP MMs49PAhqxN4PPLERdxrO92KftSW24WApjkpkfdz55192bEx47PH3FJKJuIPxxQc MGhuP+tuqEz9+QYkYhReDJY7Jskgr9j4KZmBMPZGHF+UdhubjDkAA5p8btNk5feE B+kfoJDZgvAZJko0ZEjFSN/kARAdFE74zs9D0joNp615lpJdyuVIWA== =DPwE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Fri Dec 11 13:23:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF071A8ADE for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:23:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ohrptj4vgByQ for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:23:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E4DB1A8AD7 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:23:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B3DE007; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:29:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8052F63795; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:23:51 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Randy Turner In-Reply-To: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:23:53 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Randy Turner wrote: > We might want to consider rolling items from 6553, 6551, etc. back in= to > an overall =E2=80=9CRPL Protocol=E2=80=9D RFC =E2=80=93 not everythin= g, but items that we have > found in implementation to be a requirement for a workable RPL > implementation. That's entirely doable if we have the editorial cycles, and it's included i= n: ines> Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues i= n the ines> data plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress the= m, as ines> well as the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechan= ism. So, we'd be *updating* 6554,6553,6551, etc. in explaining how to compress things. ines> aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC ines> 6550 to Internet Standard. And this item includes the possibility that we could combine multiple documents as we go to IS. When it says "RFC6550" it should mean the entire RPL document set. So perhaps that part should be more explicit? > Also, I would like to consider other options for routing besides > strictly storing and non-storing, or mixed storing/non-storing Explicitely already mentioned: we didn't pick a solution in the charter above: **standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism** > Randy So, are you in favour of this change, or can you suggest specific text? =2D- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVms+5ICLcPvd0N1lAQJhaAgArFyXkyIrOHiy1A9Y4JJnYH8S+VB1UXkq 3GLiwZ6QeJ7n6Bua3ewsW6iKjvsofasJSDlfmGYFqzQ10vNvcZUepWrwed8+SBqn ui8pX9jWJ7KfhBroT6tiNpn8lnzssSUL7QW/byYFRz/epu0UI5V1Teg4HSYXeHx4 lS2qgxa+1WitOgS8JLG9YjBSnb9wp5nJvWPqQPzTkH8wIbDH9vEsn5s4VAFANlS9 ZYWMUFX8BK/x6Anje9ysqPhoPZ+meQUt5RzG7XQVNfIFpEI5ujKXQe18mzqpsCQA F+Gc1F7TsWvG/NdljvPlXV6Jl7cmHnK8LFMGtnf4FOHcFeG1HFHAhw== =G4hN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Fri Dec 11 13:26:51 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC291A8AE2 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:26:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fHcuDRolFecT for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:26:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 916581A8ADE for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:26:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504A3E007 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:32:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE97263795 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:26:46 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:26:49 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > I think we should not look only into enhancement of RPL but looking > into one new proposed protocol (experimental). My question is why we > only have one standard protocol for ROLL? Because that was in our original charter. > different/new scenarios now, so YES we chosen the one routing RPL as a > general purpose protocol for ROLL, now we need to do maintain RPL with > its future work, but we also can now see special cases where we need > new protocols for ROLL. We noticed that ROLL is more a special case of > other routing protocols in the internet but still we didn't go for > experimental drafts that cover special cases and implementations. If you have new use cases that you believe can not be satisfied by RPL, then you should detail them in an ID. This is exactly how RPL-P2P came about. If extensions (whether experimental or not), can address the need then they would be in scope for this WG. If an entirely new routing protocol is needed, then that would be out of scope and would be up to the routing Area Directors to decide where that work would be done. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVms/k4CLcPvd0N1lAQKGsgf7BwGSn0XT0OIjd20xOexoM2w/xHrxiI6K 2aUMHjou/OIDOFiKkhbJZpuWzVXol1kJL9+bZR40FQJeeHBUawHvmx5XpvlogeNU ROYYmrcuiSgla+igF6CsA7DqdqUR4B3B+5SOxuazQEw4VnKZHiHE82Gcj9oa7gn8 LeNMI6cY3aY5IE6Rz/wOZ1EIR/FdkVbx6mpoeB+MFBXGuB1ai5lUWrRCF+B66y3/ Tr6QtHNOsgoYZbQQVvHPlssiA+4V0DTs1XhMWyHE6Om9YGZwYxGduCbcRC7RWLJb rd+TewyH+RZV8ZIxUYmla6S4QkAp8RTtL35H+cCWd6quhWmydOcgfw== =zWlW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Fri Dec 11 15:05:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FAC1A92FD for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:05:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6mRVfA4Y1hmV for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:05:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84331A92F5 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:05:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.208]) by atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBBN5YGP024640 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:05:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 11497 invoked by uid 0); 11 Dec 2015 23:05:34 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 73.207.234.73 X-Authenticated-UID: rturner@amalfisystems.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.1.16?) (rturner@amalfisystems.com@73.207.234.73) by 0 with ESMTPA; 11 Dec 2015 23:05:34 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\)) From: Randy Turner In-Reply-To: <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:05:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5) Archived-At: Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 23:05:37 -0000 Hi Michael, RFC 6550 mentions the possibility of hybrid storing/non-storing = approaches, but only mentions the possibility and declares it out of = scope. I do think it would be nice to re-visit this topic and see if = there=E2=80=99s something there of value. The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to this = =E2=80=9Chybrid=E2=80=9D, but specific to multicast. Something like = =E2=80=9CNon-storing with multicast-storing=E2=80=9D This would be basically a non-storing mode of operation, except a node = would just store multicast memberships that have been declared - if = someone joins a multicast group, you store this=E2=80=A6since = memberships can be aggregated, it shouldn=E2=80=99t mean too much of a = burden on the amount of memory required to store multicast routes. Randy > On Dec 11, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Michael Richardson = wrote: >=20 >=20 > Randy Turner wrote: >> We might want to consider rolling items from 6553, 6551, etc. back = into >> an overall =E2=80=9CRPL Protocol=E2=80=9D RFC =E2=80=93 not = everything, but items that we have >> found in implementation to be a requirement for a workable RPL >> implementation. >=20 > That's entirely doable if we have the editorial cycles, and it's = included in: >=20 > ines> Over time, additional issues have come up, including = issues in the > ines> data plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress = them, as > ines> well as the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing = mechanism. >=20 > So, we'd be *updating* 6554,6553,6551, etc. in explaining how to = compress > things. >=20 > ines> aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC > ines> 6550 to Internet Standard. >=20 > And this item includes the possibility that we could combine multiple > documents as we go to IS. > When it says "RFC6550" it should mean the entire RPL document set. > So perhaps that part should be more explicit? >=20 >> Also, I would like to consider other options for routing besides >> strictly storing and non-storing, or mixed storing/non-storing >=20 > Explicitely already mentioned: we didn't pick a solution in the = charter > above: **standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing = mechanism** >=20 >> Randy >=20 > So, are you in favour of this change, or can you suggest specific = text? >=20 > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >=20 From nobody Sat Dec 12 14:22:06 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6321A90EA for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:22:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BnbdcpU76ucX for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:22:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x231.google.com (mail-qg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D64B1A90E7 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:22:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by qgz52 with SMTP id 52so37378898qgz.1 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:22:02 -0800 (PST) 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 :content-type; bh=XBMKV8QBmkZw1M5f2vIPk/5Rppf9svisIyiWTdAidrE=; b=qpoj2BKN7Gk3H6uGFmnZDqMP+9Nw0MHqlpiBNmghnOfViLvHc1yOcgIrHv7M3wpeBX Bnc+Am1tN2+MiPYFef7TSrrsjfzOIN2XSMU2ef2ZASjcgwMCAyVc4yb4EaWpapBQtQX2 0jKrYNvtSrVm8VaMNZd7CYHJHrPeHKac2DcXysMnKKjm0+pDeGBkSE55/SGxJFvTx8kT xvyhpOVWf0tCVWGYdMytaP8p61RtIVnrKvy9EvdDoTD99Di0CL4GKJDmUEkPhKsUuVem HwwFlQWc3KjQkm+lZpokTtqby37iStd0k4LUa3111zQ//UczfciVzGwaKE4klgu6hRCX Q8OQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.96.230 with SMTP id k93mr32410136qge.13.1449958922440; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:22:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.95.22 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:22:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <12487.1449869206@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <12487.1449869206@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:22:02 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a4aa082e0100526badefe Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 22:22:05 -0000 --001a113a4aa082e0100526badefe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 My previous message was my reply to the request of the chair that welcome opinions and new recharter, so I did not understand that there are things out of scope. On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > If you have new use cases that you believe can not be satisfied by RPL, > then > you should detail them in an ID. > There were discussions about use cases before, but I just need to discuss first, then see if we can do ID. No protocol can satisfy all use cases. So we can discuss first, and then decide if their is availability, > > This is exactly how RPL-P2P came about. > Yes there was discussions, some may prefer to do it off-line, and then write IDs, > > If extensions (whether experimental or not), can address the need then they > would be in scope for this WG. Ok, but that is why I am replying to the proposing call, so I am discussing that issue and others, > If an entirely new routing protocol is > needed, then that would be out of scope and would be up to the routing Area > Directors to decide where that work would be done. > I don't think it is out of scope. Participants are the ones to decide/discuss where new protocols go (don't forget directors can participate without hats), and directors only have the final decision after our discussions. Therefore, I hope we discuss recharter without initial directions/force. So I think that new proposal for the recharter should make the option open for new one experimental ROLL-protocol, to encourage new ideas. AB --001a113a4aa082e0100526badefe Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My previous message was my reply to the request of the cha= ir that welcome opinions and new recharter, so I did not understand that th= ere are things out of scope.
<= br>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Michael Ric= hardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

If you have new use cases that you believe can not be satisfied by R= PL, then
you should detail them in an ID.

There were discus= sions about use cases before, but I just need to discuss first, then see if= we can do ID. No protocol can satisfy all use cases.

So we can discuss first, and then decide if their is availability,=

This is exactly how RPL-P2P came about.

Yes there = was discussions, some may prefer to do it off-line, and then write IDs,
=

If extensions (whether experimental or not), can address the need then they=
would be in scope for this WG.

Ok, but that= is why I am replying to the proposing call, so I am discussing that issue = and others,
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 If an = entirely new routing protocol is
needed, then that would be out of scope and would be up to the routing Area=
Directors to decide where that work would be done.
I don't think it is out of scope.

Participants are = the ones to decide/discuss where new protocols go (don't forget directo= rs can participate without hats), and directors only have the final decisio= n after our discussions. Therefore, I hope we discuss recharter without ini= tial directions/force.

=C2=A0So I think that new proposal for the re= charter should make the option open for new one experimental ROLL-protocol,= to encourage new ideas.

AB

--001a113a4aa082e0100526badefe-- From nobody Sat Dec 12 14:33:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE0C1A9107 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:33:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NDYWNqhFp1eD for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:33:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (relay2-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA1EA1A9103 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:33:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mfilter21-d.gandi.net (mfilter21-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.149]) by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97273C5A4B; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:33:49 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter21-d.gandi.net Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.194]) by mfilter21-d.gandi.net (mfilter21-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rWeOHyy1zinX; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:33:48 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 93.199.254.229 Received: from nar.local (p5DC7FEE5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.254.229]) (Authenticated sender: cabo@cabo.im) by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5B75C5A53; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:33:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <566CA0C9.5080605@tzi.org> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:33:45 +0100 From: Carsten Bormann User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> In-Reply-To: <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 22:33:52 -0000 Randy Turner wrote: > The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to this “hybrid”, but specific to multicast. Something like “Non-storing with multicast-storing” While you are talking about multicast: Any interest in working on constrained-cast (multicast that works with non-storing)? https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bergmann-bier-ccast-00 Grüße, Carsten From nobody Sat Dec 12 15:15:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BB91A9238 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:15:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL=1.488, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1MZLGJH_PXiD for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm26-vm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm26-vm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.115.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55F731A9235 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:15:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1449962136; bh=8E9X0VdGLii8JqxSMlW9N1D0BAE8TcdneF0COYlADL8=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=rSo2B0NI6nceSczwocWTkGs7Uw5TMVFjO+RBmZ4CvLCoIV12LALM10WxyvCmD8bL8RMBOAXcN5uGFt91KaXfZkWTPgH3vHiqA4eo2pi1I+v85oPwRj/XlYjnBCTXFZWvsm8IMSDqZhyO/lPPGReLJg5NatvhVT5HPCSldRgMtSw= Received: from [66.196.81.157] by nm26.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Dec 2015 23:15:36 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.242] by tm3.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Dec 2015 23:15:36 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp113.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Dec 2015 23:15:36 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 222400.15885.bm@smtp113.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: kmQa_mwVM1kypys.YLc7BX9JcPn.v3FfA8GyAc2P40Nr1U7 B4cV7Jmb2tGH9sq40z9Ee6_Vr4vTjiLL4dm2vxeJZX6FklxF2MYznL2YP5L9 RlL2YYPleKNPAnWPftPfd_Y0cLJghVxm2i8XUeoz7kg9dYE7I.n0g6Mttu8q jdS.8m9Lj6hRntWtb3hJFBtjSZD4lLplqc_rxFPu5EdgBotksJb6YbhdjIJV 8nYaWEHAgMMoP5meNW0PIGYbHv7mxeGUMi_qXAzF75VWlRbpKFOn9k.BqTXH MBcWQPMp7S9ZFkamUzk5ZWYlMjNEG8ynFtNQXD7udBJUai3edpW08ktYz4fw yUkzzvIW1jcOdfJnZO.xsDsdclPB6q9ljXsUhl2Lx88QuIlst61jr7dTsfJC xaiY8zDAkeXsHBhd_biyNseCiFQBs7KJAlKipIp2fbbhES0U.2P4ZXd2srDI logGgLtPSfleDS7AO3wM4sFwjxDX.d71y1cAX5eTVBTAZ.mCPb7Dd.IR.9ax 1_.7YZxJTY2Yui0voZXKEUwrinV2h90hpeR96xcxH X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.9.151119 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:15:31 -0800 From: Don Sturek To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] New proposed charter References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <566CA0C9.5080605@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <566CA0C9.5080605@tzi.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:15:38 -0000 Hi Carsten, Definite interest here. I know there was some discussion about using Bier for multicast but we need something that scales to networks on the order of 5-10 thousand devices. Don Sturek On 12/12/15 2:33 PM, "Roll on behalf of Carsten Bormann" wrote: >Randy Turner wrote: >> The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to this >>=B3hybrid=B2, but specific to multicast. Something like =B3Non-storing with >>multicast-storing=B2 > >While you are talking about multicast: > >Any interest in working on constrained-cast (multicast that works with >non-storing)? > >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bergmann-bier-ccast-00 > >Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten > >_______________________________________________ >Roll mailing list >Roll@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From nobody Sat Dec 12 15:38:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C83B1A92FE for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:38:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0DBOg_xfkCwu for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:38:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3on0747.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe04::747]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B8161A92FC for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:38:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from DB5PR01MB1079.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.162.152.141) by DB5PR01MB1095.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.162.152.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.355.16; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:38:20 +0000 Received: from DB5PR01MB1080.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.162.152.142) by DB5PR01MB1079.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.162.152.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.355.16; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:38:19 +0000 Received: from DB5PR01MB1080.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([10.162.152.142]) by DB5PR01MB1080.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([10.162.152.142]) with mapi id 15.01.0355.012; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:38:19 +0000 From: "Turner, Randy" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHRNCTO7wA6oCeiK0aD1V/wLHieSZ7F+nKAgABRuoCAABxqgIABiXKAgAALq4CAAAZfmw== Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:38:19 +0000 Message-ID: <9665482C-6958-4851-9150-20BB831E8842@landisgyr.com> References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <566CA0C9.5080605@tzi.org>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Randy.Turner@landisgyr.com; x-originating-ip: [2600:1005:b04b:ae29:8d41:7e80:54e0:9abb] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB5PR01MB1079; 5:ou0ETE5BBvME2cNFIVL01D8xiPdRZvU9p+Ds+sfMT6A0u+U0t865205zIHBkjafTZvsXR70IWjAY0hiWqZgE69xIsp3tnprIdflTfpDh6al1DZtoYNY0aydsWhHuDL6C/0rjRhkLGZZQ3dS97NWDJg==; 24:UPHGv0sC6mgPtCRIY4muI/qgyfMvU1QPnuvdoRJIZEwqq2dwa1xly5sGB/us+Sjxzm3zx099/TnXkMPSS4BN3Rycy9FzkL6+rGQ8T35aems= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB5PR01MB1079; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(228869891846254); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(520078)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:DB5PR01MB1079; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB5PR01MB1079; x-forefront-prvs: 07880C4932 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(189002)(479174004)(199003)(377454003)(24454002)(5001960100002)(6116002)(107886002)(19580405001)(19580395003)(2950100001)(97736004)(586003)(102836003)(1096002)(81156007)(101416001)(5004730100002)(1220700001)(11100500001)(5890100001)(5008740100001)(15975445007)(40100003)(2900100001)(189998001)(110136002)(92566002)(122556002)(106356001)(105586002)(86362001)(77096005)(83716003)(5002640100001)(87936001)(54356999)(93886004)(106116001)(76176999)(450100001)(33656002)(10400500002)(36756003)(50986999)(82746002)(3826002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB5PR01MB1079; H:DB5PR01MB1080.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: landisgyr.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Dec 2015 23:38:19.0224 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: ee2cd48b-958f-4be4-9852-b8f104c001b9 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB5PR01MB1079 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; DB5PR01MB1095; 2:44JrA+yD4yOv3fJeYWLudusB2NMg3eZ2DOkxQQXbbmNLQrXwNhylDyvQOJ4vyREOViL09yf+QIugKVtEhBchKnsktbnz5dHHLgV4yjHiZD73b8jR9wARWCrzB0SbtBalJz6lsXPeq224qAPB/A0moA==; 23:kiIf1V0O7F+xoCyFnIH9XYVAARSOv2AFMOoaw5jY6EQZX6o1mtg6xDwP5siAtHTmmzoiDZKKE8dxc8mgFMxnxHd+c+gkVYv8XAA7jx8U97fxogx+144dQ8e5b2+dZn9BxxPljWMoytjis7Ly1Fq1OmOQuwmFyYan87OlGjGjGutuF2+W7akpZhezv+2c0zin X-OriginatorOrg: landisgyr.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:38:45 -0000 Yes, I think it would be worth looking into these non-storing multicast hyb= rids - the hybrid I spoke of earlier, as well as the Bier ideas that have b= een topics at the last 2 (or more) plenaries R. > On Dec 12, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > > Hi Carsten, > > Definite interest here. I know there was some discussion about using > Bier for multicast but we need something that scales to networks on the > order of 5-10 thousand devices. > > Don Sturek > > > On 12/12/15 2:33 PM, "Roll on behalf of Carsten Bormann" > wrote: > >> Randy Turner wrote: >>> The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to this >>> =B3hybrid=B2, but specific to multicast. Something like =B3Non-storing = with >>> multicast-storing=B2 >> >> While you are talking about multicast: >> >> Any interest in working on constrained-cast (multicast that works with >> non-storing)? >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bergmann-bier-ccast-00 >> >> Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 P PLEASE CONSIDER OUR ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL. This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally = privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized represent= ative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using, copying or d= istributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have = received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by retu= rn e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank = you. From nobody Sun Dec 13 10:25:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705981B2B14 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:25:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mACdf_gHQMJO for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 325121B2B12 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2812002A; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:31:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16DA63797; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:25:44 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Randy Turner In-Reply-To: <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:25:48 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Randy Turner wrote: > The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to this > =E2=80=9Chybrid=E2=80=9D, but specific to multicast. Something like = =E2=80=9CNon-storing with > multicast-storing=E2=80=9D > This would be basically a non-storing mode of operation, except a node > would just store multicast memberships that have been declared - if > someone joins a multicast group, you store this=E2=80=A6since members= hips can > be aggregated, it shouldn=E2=80=99t mean too much of a burden on the = amount of > memory required to store multicast routes. Write an ID, slides, etc..=20 If the IESG approves the proposed charter, it would be in scope. (Today, it is not) =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; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVm24KICLcPvd0N1lAQJPuAgAihz75H5EYztJXT8Dmyg/mihSuHZyZb5f wSQtjZ+c9Ck9U7yg6PmvaKlTv7GvlNb6T1AOG6Za61BITDfXGA4RRT27FMCmG1aH vfyimYL0BA2g5LuPfNYXa5wxS44We/8qDwYxM7f1/GNr5NTptmqjFWILiutAo2qZ 2ygXn0iFZnfUSzYsfCbwN5RxO33H2FyFiNcwT8IqZvuOkLWeJJ1zi1sJYIxzjZKS Ikw7dEmZTlq6H91sYnsaD1YjHKTNzxnx22e/26SRWihDxw91iVgPf81txNh7eiMo CYi6hJcZhmw2OVxPuWYaUnBQz99GD5pXpmdW5Q4ESv26NXo2yXNrCg== =OJ6g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Sun Dec 13 10:34:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D04A1B2B28 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:34:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Ky0u9N5opIM for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:34:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8429A1A8A72 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:34:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC0F2002A for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:40:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A664163797 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: References: <12487.1449869206@obiwan.sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:34:51 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > My previous message was my reply to the request of the chair that > welcome opinions and new recharter, so I did not understand that there > are things out of scope. New routing protocols should not be in scope in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that the Area Directors would share that opinion. So, your suggestion to amend the charter to work on additional routing protocols (vs extensions to 6550) is not well received. But, even if it we= re well received, the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new routing protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem is. > There were discussions about use cases before, but I just need to > discuss first, then see if we can do ID. No protocol can satisfy all > use cases. You can discuss anything mesh-over, LLN-related you like on the list. If it clearly has a better home, we may ask you to change venues, but that's all.=20=20 > I don't think it is out of scope. > Participants are the ones to decide/discuss where new protocols go > (don't forget directors can participate without hats), and directors > only have the final decision after our discussions. Therefore, I hope > we discuss recharter without initial directions/force. > So I think that new proposal for the recharter should make the option > open for new one experimental ROLL-protocol, to encourage new ideas. Perhaps we are using different words. What is a "new one experimental ROLL-protocol"? Maybe what you are proposing is what I would call an extension to 6550. Or maybe you are talking about something entirely different . Does this new protocol exist already? It is conceptually different than RPL or BABEL or OLSR or AODV?=20=20 If such a thing is justified, why wouldn't it justify a new working group? =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; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVm26SICLcPvd0N1lAQJ2Fwf/RGlLEPL0aXpzERF57rl68DyALSbTVuxv ZxY5I6O7pNQK4DmkeZnX79LD6ZMbEULMwmAsTGdtN+9AzfBDgltetCQLAhbDmvrj vlIqBCbHGWLY4fNxnkZBLo4W6ydljdnJorrqVV1eA0P88J+f300PVR0vDuqp6WaF 4lAz7lZdBPc+4bUI4DMkLRy+ns2RPIf594DEHq04UBuTJ6HrHEMnpjztGR4PfcB6 LRg4MCeiLHGhrVcNk8fiWuggLc3hY2ZDsR0fYv5wnOw79OXCA/SRemRBb7W4HooJ mw0IbUq/sXz0cv1S8WWJuxk8ao/lr4qI1p/NTXzN2H3+TvtGsKomhg== =P49x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Sun Dec 13 11:13:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96421B2B92 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:13:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ySEzQL76FaQW for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:13:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 751701B2B91 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:13:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=812; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1450033990; x=1451243590; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=5aa/sB1050My2KPNt/89hTmG/FIO+7LdmoQHG2f2yqs=; b=JnjsVd85wICmGyjASNfI530R0HlXp+ACyuXywCbsbaRkmWqLqXde6Jws 5XK9fYVLVLBLgxYQKD1ER/DdAaYDTFjfaD4GrKc7yhcA+wqAGt1qJ/pfv Sq5WTydbO/ff5N+k37VEA54r2IBwFSsewBsAgZSudr0NzwdwN+0bGSUgD s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AbBQBXwm1W/5tdJa1egzqBQb0zgWOGD?= =?us-ascii?q?gKBGjkTAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEDAX4LAgEIGC4hESUCBBMbh38DCgi3bw2EPQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEahlaCD4JuglOCBoNNgRoFjW2JCQGLS4F4gVuTX?= =?us-ascii?q?oNng3MBIwM9ghEdgVZyhHMBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,423,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="217841217" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Dec 2015 19:13:09 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBDJD9ga017417 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:09 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:13:08 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:13:08 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHRNdT3yqBtA+gc9USa9gm3C769fp7JSPDh Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:08 +0000 Message-ID: <51F00A05-976D-4CB3-AFB3-944A196D8949@cisco.com> References: <12487.1449869206@obiwan.sandelman.ca> , <24881.1450031688@obiwan.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <24881.1450031688@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:13:11 -0000 Pascal > Le 13 d=E9c. 2015 =E0 19:34, Michael Richardson a= =E9crit : >=20 >=20 > Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> My previous message was my reply to the request of the chair that >> welcome opinions and new recharter, so I did not understand that there >> are things out of scope. >=20 > New routing protocols should not be in scope in my opinion. > I'm pretty sure that the Area Directors would share that opinion. >=20 > So, your suggestion to amend the charter to work on additional routing > protocols (vs extensions to 6550) is not well received. But, even if it = were > well received, the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new > routing protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem is. >=20 +1 From nobody Sun Dec 13 13:49:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3296D1A87A3 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:49:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G5iSPTGjrXxV for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:49:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBED1A87A0 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:49:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.206]) by atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBDLnUAf007941 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:49:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 30615 invoked by uid 0); 13 Dec 2015 21:49:30 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 70.193.162.179 X-Authenticated-UID: rturner@amalfisystems.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?100.79.238.28?) (rturner@amalfisystems.com@70.193.162.179) by 0 with ESMTPA; 13 Dec 2015 21:49:30 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Randy Turner Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:49:12 -0500 Message-Id: <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com> References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <23010.1450031144@obiwan.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <23010.1450031144@obiwan.sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13C75) Archived-At: Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 21:49:34 -0000 I thought the discussion was around developing a new charter. If that's the c= ase then nothing is "in scope" yet. If we're not discussing potential work i= tems for a new charter then what is this thread about again? I would be hap= py to work up a draft if that's what is required to get things "in scope" R. > On Dec 13, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Michael Richardson wr= ote: >=20 >=20 > Randy Turner wrote: >> The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to this >> =E2=80=9Chybrid=E2=80=9D, but specific to multicast. Something like =E2=80= =9CNon-storing with >> multicast-storing=E2=80=9D >=20 >> This would be basically a non-storing mode of operation, except a node >> would just store multicast memberships that have been declared - if >> someone joins a multicast group, you store this=E2=80=A6since memberships= can >> be aggregated, it shouldn=E2=80=99t mean too much of a burden on the amou= nt of >> memory required to store multicast routes. >=20 > Write an ID, slides, etc..=20 > If the IESG approves the proposed charter, it would be in scope. > (Today, it is not) >=20 > --=20 > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >=20 From nobody Sun Dec 13 19:35:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ABFA1A1B6D for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:35:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FqILmgdUUXDc for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:35:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0F3F1A1B6C for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70283200A3; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209AB63797; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:35:09 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Randy Turner In-Reply-To: <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com> References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <23010.1450031144@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 03:35:11 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Randy Turner wrote: > I thought the discussion was around developing a new charter. If that's > the case then nothing is "in scope" yet. If we're not discussing > potential work items for a new charter then what is this thread about > again? I would be happy to work up a draft if that's what is required > to get things "in scope" Step 1a) adjust charter. The PROPOSED charter text ALREADY says: ***the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism*** so anything that you want to write about a "non-storing with multicast-storing" would fit into that wording. 1b) the text also says, "look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL protocol" So, anything which ads to RPL is in scope. 2) Step 2, when the new charter is in place, PLEASE: "Write an ID, slides, etc.." about "non-storing with multicast-storing", and see if there is a reason/support for the IETF to standardize it. It could be that only you care, in which case you can write it up as a non-WG submission, not subject to standardization. Or it could be that it's the coolest thing since HTTP, and everyone wants to run it... -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEUAwUBVm447ICLcPvd0N1lAQIJvwf43Z0ZiW7bqY6JqMGu1mdOFK1dTTa4rO2P 69xWJnwNr+d6x40A5aYCbHLXoFq0PBEav1uxDd0T0mGZaH5/NcBghI3O17nC2UKd Ufue9K+7/UFP0yYIT20r3aqUWWQ+gaJxL1XIliv4DG0/hnr9fDKSPDU99yfdELb4 i+s8UVwh6piSwCz9FLWjJ7jUPXlurPqxgO5JRjiAilG6Isrlds5NW572QTNQqpIs ulkrV1AxhQEJXIVHoG9B9Ily1n8aM8cIgm+mrEsko7WYeJFbQ0UxKwv8r762X0fi q1o7iOV8AFjW7T2CL6rkh88KWscRj1WP9l622JsrmFF1d4LZutUy =pXiM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Sun Dec 13 20:47:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE201A92BA for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:47:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6n-sUgWOt3vZ for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:47:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from atl4mhob15.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob15.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966571A92B4 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:47:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.211]) by atl4mhob15.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBE4lClf004450 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:47:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 8607 invoked by uid 0); 14 Dec 2015 04:47:12 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 73.207.234.73 X-Authenticated-UID: rturner@amalfisystems.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.1.16?) (rturner@amalfisystems.com@73.207.234.73) by 0 with ESMTPA; 14 Dec 2015 04:47:12 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\)) From: Randy Turner In-Reply-To: <12070.1450064109@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:47:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <23010.1450031144@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com> <12070.1450064109@obiwan.sandelman.ca> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:47:17 -0000 I think there are other ROLL drafts to be discussed on the document = tracker - one is using DIOs to distribute compression context, and the = larger discussion about usage of DIOs to obviate the need for RFC 6775 = or other ND traffic. Would this be picked up in the new charter ? If = not, what would be the disposition of these discussions ? Randy > On Dec 13, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Michael Richardson = wrote: >=20 >=20 > Randy Turner wrote: >> I thought the discussion was around developing a new charter. If = that's >> the case then nothing is "in scope" yet. If we're not discussing >> potential work items for a new charter then what is this thread about >> again? I would be happy to work up a draft if that's what is = required >> to get things "in scope" >=20 > Step 1a) adjust charter. The PROPOSED charter text ALREADY says: >=20 > ***the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism*** >=20 > so anything that you want to write about a "non-storing with = multicast-storing" > would fit into that wording. >=20 > 1b) the text also says, "look at enhancements and maintenance to the = RPL > protocol" >=20 > So, anything which ads to RPL is in scope. >=20 > 2) Step 2, when the new charter is in place, PLEASE: > "Write an ID, slides, etc.." >=20 > about "non-storing with multicast-storing", and see if there is a = reason/support for > the IETF to standardize it. It could be that only you care, in which = case > you can write it up as a non-WG submission, not subject to = standardization. > Or it could be that it's the coolest thing since HTTP, and everyone = wants to > run it... >=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 From nobody Sun Dec 13 23:56:28 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E7A1A0120 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:56:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aUKK-95ocRWX for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:56:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net [194.109.24.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 986B41A000A for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:56:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.207]) by smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net with ESMTP id tKwL1r00Z4U4Moq01KwLcU; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:56:20 +0100 Received: from 2001:983:a264:1:746e:de2e:ddb3:3189 by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:56:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:56:20 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67593abdddf97226f40fcc03bc75fc72@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (iQCn3PWdjYc/0uWIQWuDj64VlOeEStsH) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:56:26 -0000 Hi Ines, Michael, The charter seems to cover my expectations for a continuation of the WG. Would writing a YANG module for MPL and RPL fit within maintenance? Peter Pascal Thubert (pthubert) schreef op 2015-12-11 18:47: > Hello Ines > > I like the proposal because it is open enough to include the various > items we discussed recently. Great work! > > I’m in full support for this proposal as you may have guessed, > > Pascal > > FROM: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] ON BEHALF OF Ines Robles > SENT: vendredi 11 décembre 2015 16:01 > TO: roll > CC: Michael Richardson > SUBJECT: [Roll] New proposed charter > > Dear all: > > We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) > charter [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ [1]], please > let us know your opinion about this. > > If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let > us know as well. > > Charter proposed might be: > > RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful > deployments. > > Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the > data plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as > well as the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism. > > The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL > protocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 > to Internet Standard. > > Thank you very much, > > Michael and Ines. > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From nobody Mon Dec 14 07:08:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAEC31A6F6E for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:08:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5CCS-DywO-VN for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:08:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67FB71A6F45 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:07:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB2F203AB for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:13:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77EAB63797 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:07:53 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <23010.1450031144@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com> <12070.1450064109@obiwan.sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:08:15 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Randy Turner wrote: > I think there are other ROLL drafts to be discussed on the document > tracker - one is using DIOs to distribute compression context, and the > larger discussion about usage of DIOs to obviate the need for RFC 6775 > or other ND traffic. Would this be picked up in the new charter ? Yes: >> 1b) the text also says, "look at enhancements and maintenance to the >> RPL protocol" -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVm7bSYCLcPvd0N1lAQIFiwgAlBFwFVXH8va3QzM3RNSuBGCzXkqPHhNh MfvdOUZlwfzcnYhn5RbvyxF5+lN9ojX6nE7YNQnKZZgfUQbeRPlqF6wN0n1MLJcp RGR7jHT4v/Gkrlm3D60KMOm6Xa3p5rKa9v4MjI7RGUoDNamIVjDva1BnJS4trzhI gBMrRyYixa75A0ZQWEVOkoskzn4Ny29vDXPs34JEQJHZkgTDMqJjqsFM2I2TSoPW +ZyHSvFboixWSfM8mCQNk/u5cwfdfS/RMlzXgzIVfNFvPKfOjm4lWEx9IhXi+p1n Tsif6Tvu1dR+0B4mSHrEAgksiux8qiNS2XLMJ4SVfHIi7JL54LFyKg== =v9JW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Mon Dec 14 07:47:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFC01A701C for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:47:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cmvu228eksw5 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:47:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EA0D1A0184 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:47:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1391; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1450108046; x=1451317646; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=bnpek95ngkSxQuihYbTvpr7q/38aDFoBbFWCrt/bcJ8=; b=cr/sapkmuBM5XxgntubiLmOS++vuT6+IfAuXdcNoHxBIlw+IBBPaVebj ODFFk45yH4AzSzK73OTldRYiu4ETmis1h6VhqyIjIf6sgm9O10mgIFkUM hnQDEVH1JLeYWpVDxkkreLpSVLdICeZkLfVfM3PVbfh69PaQbA33bxdcn c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AHAgBS425W/4oNJK1egzpTbga9LQENg?= =?us-ascii?q?WMXCoVtAoEkOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENAEBAQQBAQFrFwQCAQgRBAEBAScHJwsUCQg?= =?us-ascii?q?CBBMIiCcNvScBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEUBIZWhH2EPoUCBY1tiQkBh?= =?us-ascii?q?TSCcYUXnRoBHwEBQoQEcoN+gQgBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,427,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="53208547" Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 14 Dec 2015 15:47:26 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBEFlQDC031187 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:47:26 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:47:25 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:47:25 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHRNFo6yqBtA+gc9USa9gm3C769fp7GzMCAgAGJcoCAAAusgIACKqFg Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:47:12 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:21:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <566CA0C9.5080605@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.61.91.38] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:47:28 -0000 +1 Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Sturek > Sent: dimanche 13 d=E9cembre 2015 00:16 > To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks > Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter >=20 > Hi Carsten, >=20 > Definite interest here. I know there was some discussion about using > Bier for multicast but we need something that scales to networks on the o= rder > of 5-10 thousand devices. >=20 > Don Sturek >=20 >=20 > On 12/12/15 2:33 PM, "Roll on behalf of Carsten Bormann" > wrote: >=20 > >Randy Turner wrote: > >> The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to this > >>=B3hybrid=B2, but specific to multicast. Something like =B3Non-storing = with > >>multicast-storing=B2 > > > >While you are talking about multicast: > > > >Any interest in working on constrained-cast (multicast that works with > >non-storing)? > > > >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bergmann-bier-ccast-00 > > > >Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Roll mailing list > >Roll@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From nobody Mon Dec 14 07:47:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD7A1A0184 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:47:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y6nFf_ot6NL0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:47:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A44AA1A7018 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:47:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2635; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1450108047; x=1451317647; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=qpRpPFZnUK0grrKL9wH9eHAs7Ugemr8DxG3FouvZ318=; b=GPPhCaf8j8UB16C4OamianJUoALkibm9dU0OidKKJ4YpNYHn84idqyPm 182taaBNnt1UJiu1DJZfJNTVnHDyQkY2YZUJgdmf/BlX4s48rLj2KZFyI vo3wOPKYr/1noEKh9uDM3I0kQRdfN2QgZP4iYE5tgsWyBkbl+axQHLXkN k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AHAgDK425W/49dJa1egzpTbga9LQENg?= =?us-ascii?q?WMXCoI9gzACgSQ4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBBAEBAWsXBAIBCBEEAQEBJwcnCxQ?= =?us-ascii?q?JCAIEEwiIJw29JgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGYZWhH2EPoUCBY1tiQkBh?= =?us-ascii?q?TSICIFiSYN8lnMBHwEBQoQEcoN+gQgBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,427,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="59040385" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Dec 2015 15:47:26 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBEFlQE3003237 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:47:26 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:47:26 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:47:25 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHRNfAayqBtA+gc9USa9gm3C769fp7KOZGAgAAUIgCAADyDkA== Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:47:12 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:26:02 +0000 Message-ID: <2c9c0145533943ed81a721fc2d030305@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <23010.1450031144@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com> <12070.1450064109@obiwan.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.61.91.38] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:47:29 -0000 I hope so and my reading is yes.=20 And we must not forget SLLAO and MTU if we really want to avoid RAs between= routers... Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Turner > Sent: lundi 14 d=E9cembre 2015 05:47 > To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks > Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter >=20 >=20 > I think there are other ROLL drafts to be discussed on the document track= er - > one is using DIOs to distribute compression context, and the larger discu= ssion > about usage of DIOs to obviate the need for RFC 6775 or other ND traffic. > Would this be picked up in the new charter ? If not, what would be the > disposition of these discussions ? >=20 > Randy >=20 >=20 > > On Dec 13, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: > > > > > > Randy Turner wrote: > >> I thought the discussion was around developing a new charter. If > >> that's the case then nothing is "in scope" yet. If we're not > >> discussing potential work items for a new charter then what is this > >> thread about again? I would be happy to work up a draft if that's > >> what is required to get things "in scope" > > > > Step 1a) adjust charter. The PROPOSED charter text ALREADY says: > > > > ***the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism*** > > > > so anything that you want to write about a "non-storing with multicast- > storing" > > would fit into that wording. > > > > 1b) the text also says, "look at enhancements and maintenance to the RP= L > > protocol" > > > > So, anything which ads to RPL is in scope. > > > > 2) Step 2, when the new charter is in place, PLEASE: > > "Write an ID, slides, etc.." > > > > about "non-storing with multicast-storing", and see if there is a > > reason/support for the IETF to standardize it. It could be that only > > you care, in which case you can write it up as a non-WG submission, not > subject to standardization. > > Or it could be that it's the coolest thing since HTTP, and everyone > > wants to run it... > > > > -- > > 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 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From nobody Mon Dec 14 08:35:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D7D1ACCD8 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:35:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KfdvOhPctJ48 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:35:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com (mail-lf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FFE91A916D for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:33:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by lfed137 with SMTP id d137so73849853lfe.3 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:33:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ARHivBqu7jA2nRep+I4q7jQHnQZazdMSvxOWZYdm9cE=; b=TMh0El2W5ZsZsj6Awa0csHt623gP/FO/dwOTwkD4dMER0Xf7bTIYov5YtdQDIX2CM4 mL/yBlguKm6JJfqe3NanfcTtIA+9MUiwcfHS5GnyST5LvdqvRTHPkFlUlaenjRMjoQYK hMgqLcBYMHNpbWc5fQtKW4DFd1YKv1KnWLya4joxY7RVNcu84TeqRIarE3VuqR2GI2bv xee18WD7x245OjwQjfW89xI6ojLeaHoEyuhmJi5LnTrahaPIi3rvf9R8ze0kWbhrib+E mRZSYvPqEsQmj5QH+GVKo7nEzy92V6P8zoy7MZexdD1q+Udl7S/lpGIoS1IWO4YbHkHH DUmQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.33.149 with SMTP id h143mr4713669lfh.61.1450110785630; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:33:05 -0800 (PST) Sender: robert.cragie@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.156.75 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:33:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:33:05 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: gXycbwkkXEyWrOKgMZVVPajjM1c Message-ID: From: Robert Cragie To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114123c8433c590526de3abe Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:35:39 -0000 --001a114123c8433c590526de3abe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This is probably aimed at Pascal but relevant to ROLL. A lot of the text in draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00 (esp. section 7) is aimed at enhancements specific to RPL packet information, so should this work really be done in ROLL? Or do people think this work is better off done in 6lo as it is all about compression? There is a clear overlap so perhaps at least the charter should acknowledge relevant work done in 6lo as well. Robert On 11 December 2015 at 15:01, Ines Robles wrote: > > Dear all: > > We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charter > [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us know your > opinion about this. > > If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let us > know as well. > > Charter proposed might be: > > RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful > deployments. > > Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the data > plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as well as > the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism. > > The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL > protocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 to > Internet Standard. > > Thank you very much, > > Michael and Ines. > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --001a114123c8433c590526de3abe Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is probably aimed at Pascal but relevant to ROLL. A l= ot of the text in=C2=A0draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00 (esp. section 7) = is aimed at enhancements specific to RPL packet information, so should this= work really be done in ROLL? Or do people think this work is better off do= ne in 6lo as it is all about compression? There is a clear overlap so perha= ps at least the charter should acknowledge relevant work done in 6lo as wel= l.

Robert

On 11 December 2015 at 15:01, Ines Robles &l= t;maria= inesrobles@googlemail.com> wrote:

Dear all:


We prop= ose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charter [https= ://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us know your opin= ion about this.


If you think that other specific topic sh= ould be included, please let us know as well.


Charter pro= posed might be:


RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has s= een several successful deployments.

Over time, additional iss= ues have come up, including issues in the data plane of when to use IPinIP = headers, and how to compress them, as well as the standardization of a mixe= d storing/non-storing mechanism.

The WG is chartered to look= at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL protocol, with the aim of event= ually revising and advancing RFC 6550 to Internet Standard.


<= p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><= span style=3D"font-size:14.6666666666667px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,= 0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparen= t">Thank you very much,


Michael and Ines.

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


--001a114123c8433c590526de3abe-- From nobody Mon Dec 14 15:31:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271471A8547 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:31:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rs19Bpgm4N9N for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A4BE1A86EF for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D4E203AB; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:37:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E164563797; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:31:28 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:31:32 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Robert Cragie wrote: > This is probably aimed at Pascal but relevant to ROLL. A lot of the > text in draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00 (esp. section 7) is aimed at > enhancements specific to RPL packet information, so should this work > really be done in ROLL? Or do people think this work is better off done > in 6lo as it is all about compression? There is a clear overlap so > perhaps at least the charter should acknowledge relevant work done in > 6lo as well. The discussion among ADs was that the requirements would come from ROLL, but as 6lo is responsible for the IPHC/NHC/etc. that the work needed to occur there. I anticipate a joint WGLC though. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVm9RUICLcPvd0N1lAQIdYggAovlWrgnov06WxhHXQJcfk//5BD0MZGcm GwkRT7phPD/dhJl2pRUIZGgeOdDgEzgiaUA1fIXrg0sNb6tcOdFmtSnIPYRyzvRc x1csIXZAQpYo6jvYf+N6ZL7nnDIzlHTnhiNATeEDtsTdq9tda4H57RMC5PjLDphE pkYCUULAib+OvbeHhKwPsQejZJYM0qvK0/g+N67edwyzsHAFzy/3fmS1dRovu1Dd 6o6/MXV5ztKPdh/BCx3j6gTkgNJonC7wh8jtaibECCFMKqJp3aen6qqbD0bpHjgG BngWt6XMPDwAErYhvPpQn0R41QEEhQnqh9ic0gXsWwRA22737nCtug== =h5lX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Mon Dec 14 23:24:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257DC1B2BE0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:24:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73zV_kw52j9n for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net [194.109.24.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 665841B2BDB for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.211]) by smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net with ESMTP id tjQC1r0094ZF39u01jQCqx; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:24:12 +0100 Received: from 2001:983:a264:1:3870:26f4:4563:9bfe by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:24:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:24:12 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <566CA0C9.5080605@tzi.org> Message-ID: <5a0588e447f6d00bb52c8817f9b95fa5@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (BCWYCgN/fzIlzxIYcntE1TXHAH8GgXXD) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:24:18 -0000 +1 peter Pascal Thubert (pthubert) schreef op 2015-12-14 16:47: > +1 > > Cheers, > > Pascal > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Sturek >> Sent: dimanche 13 décembre 2015 00:16 >> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks >> Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter >> >> Hi Carsten, >> >> Definite interest here. I know there was some discussion about using >> Bier for multicast but we need something that scales to networks on >> the order >> of 5-10 thousand devices. >> >> Don Sturek >> >> >> On 12/12/15 2:33 PM, "Roll on behalf of Carsten Bormann" >> wrote: >> >> >Randy Turner wrote: >> >> The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to this >> >>³hybrid², but specific to multicast. Something like ³Non-storing with >> >>multicast-storing² >> > >> >While you are talking about multicast: >> > >> >Any interest in working on constrained-cast (multicast that works with >> >non-storing)? >> > >> >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bergmann-bier-ccast-00 >> > >> >Grüße, Carsten >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >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 > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From nobody Mon Dec 14 23:45:10 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FEA1A702B for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:45:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H2ivdFf_zShF for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:45:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53CF41A0158 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:45:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-x231.google.com with SMTP id lt2so346796lbb.3 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:45:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VqLej5pgFv14cVfaGOyG4S2mDZJxkvKNXrqzNiJh7rg=; b=sRCXcFy1kVUtG4zaJl3LRsZ6AzS0VnchbaPEf3YbbxqHssR9Q5cl1eqLV01WsaF+KD jGE9qx33pdxR4pAatDNk/AuJrGcds56N1asrs1bjcIG57G2gi6myA+6oDj3BU39b8bsq iTh4L7hCmM8zsmSCZVnwusiS8aLrMWJLN6KsIRIi5PIg+0eKlnmlKvOIKnCwRnLdVf2g 1DiHFJSBNuPvwFN/zS8a31wKgBBmhWsnG2R57eiro02QvvC33TxtCIWS5g0jupTyD5c/ 3dgNrPLSS3bAd7QYEMdzekhR05s3CqX+D9w3Ck0GRHll10kRj+O3y19ztnRlv6xA9YCy +k1Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.170.67 with SMTP id ak3mr15162428lbc.82.1450165505565; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:45:05 -0800 (PST) Sender: robert.cragie@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.156.75 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:45:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <19959.1450135888@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <19959.1450135888@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:45:05 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: aKn-iYKHcyluoTlQs10367-1QT0 Message-ID: From: Robert Cragie To: Michael Richardson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c34364d3314d0526eaf78f Archived-At: Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:45:09 -0000 --001a11c34364d3314d0526eaf78f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 OK, that's fine. Robert On 14 December 2015 at 23:31, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Robert Cragie wrote: > > This is probably aimed at Pascal but relevant to ROLL. A lot of the > > text in draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00 (esp. section 7) is aimed > at > > enhancements specific to RPL packet information, so should this work > > really be done in ROLL? Or do people think this work is better off > done > > in 6lo as it is all about compression? There is a clear overlap so > > perhaps at least the charter should acknowledge relevant work done in > > 6lo as well. > > The discussion among ADs was that the requirements would come from ROLL, > but > as 6lo is responsible for the IPHC/NHC/etc. that the work needed to occur > there. > I anticipate a joint WGLC though. > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > --001a11c34364d3314d0526eaf78f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
OK, that's fine.

Robert
=

On 14 December 20= 15 at 23:31, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> = wrote:

Robert Cragie <robert.cra= gie@gridmerge.com> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > This is probably aimed at Pascal but relevant to ROLL. A= lot of the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > text in draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00 (esp. section= 7) is aimed at
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > enhancements specific to RPL packet information, so shou= ld this work
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > really be done in ROLL? Or do people think this work is = better off done
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > in 6lo as it is all about compression? There is a clear = overlap so
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > perhaps at least the charter should acknowledge relevant= work done in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > 6lo as well.

The discussion among ADs was that the requirements would come from R= OLL, but
as 6lo is responsible for the IPHC/NHC/etc. that the work needed to occur there.
I anticipate a joint WGLC though.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@= sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://datatracker.i= etf.org/wg/roll/charter/


--001a11c34364d3314d0526eaf78f-- From nobody Wed Dec 16 00:28:00 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E161A6FCC for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:27:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.894 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMWJga_qgfr8 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x241.google.com (mail-pa0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 932301A19F8 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-x241.google.com with SMTP id fl14so2442693pac.1 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:27:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :thread-index:content-language; bh=CNGSUUU2+K0JBgeJA1CaZdagWiGghZY/bz4ETT73jvQ=; b=Ra4hu9NAXL3x6ZyUhokpNI0NZv7QY6Itsl6Gs9i+qQeBEDshm1o2w3en65vfkVK9gb GmID9zZD3XceOpdnYoRXIekncvSIpu7RMivBncQaesCN+H0JFDr4FUzbNTVjGlJY9oKj lckcgyD4ca1qjQpFRzKIGtkY5o9iKzYXK9fQ+R/F8CM1b6czF/bGqmAx1dzoqVX9In08 asSoRXAEy0HAGZyOW2YkCra92h6mDJtqxCU2TcPxtRMucT94pskGH7POjOhoov1bl732 mzvx5KzPd1v7OCT6dT7CawyIUExiEhMwwblbya/09Tv6BDSh+LTl1l/GvJZIFWg4ErH6 dDjA== X-Received: by 10.66.253.5 with SMTP id zw5mr61603766pac.100.1450254477230; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ThanhDinhPC ([39.115.19.139]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2sm2931866pfl.56.2015.12.16.00.27.55 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:27:56 -0800 (PST) From: "William" To: Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:27:52 +0900 Message-ID: <001301d137db$a9bd3550$fd379ff0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01D13827.19A52B70" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdE3224PdpDvpxRwQqOhf7fbawVxWg== Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] Pls help!!! How can I measure the packet delivery latency of a message forwarded by RPL? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:27:58 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01D13827.19A52B70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Can you pls guide me how can I measure the packet delivery latency of a message forwarded by RPL? I am using RPL in Contiki. If you can give me an example or sample source code for such a performance measurement, It would be great! Thank you very much! William ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01D13827.19A52B70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

Can you pls = guide me how can I measure the packet delivery latency of a message = forwarded by RPL? I am using RPL in Contiki. If you can give me an = example or sample source code for such a performance measurement, It = would be great!

 

Thank you = very much!

 

William

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01D13827.19A52B70-- From nobody Wed Dec 16 06:30:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65E51B2DC8 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 06:29:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.617 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kdr5wGNnCgtf for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 06:29:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A7AC1A8961 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 06:29:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACEF02009E; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:35:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DA963797; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:29:57 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: <001301d137db$a9bd3550$fd379ff0$@gmail.com> References: <001301d137db$a9bd3550$fd379ff0$@gmail.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: William Subject: Re: [Roll] Pls help!!! How can I measure the packet delivery latency of a message forwarded by RPL? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:29:59 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain William wrote: > Can you pls guide me how can I measure the packet delivery latency of a > message forwarded by RPL? I am using RPL in Contiki. If you can give me > an example or sample source code for such a performance measurement, It > would be great! William, in general, IETF WG mailing lists are for discussion of the protocol itself, and not specific implementations. The contiki community is quite vibrant, existing in a few mailing lists and github issues, and I suggest you look there. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVnF1X4CLcPvd0N1lAQLKEwf/Sp/QS65ZyPqW1O9zvBawyKVgB3xJC/Af cVytEhUpCvvZNTNSTTXlIZj2u+CI27XZojG1cwo20/FX3dOG5cDvXswENMm4kJCF 541Hg93HCjljNLc/JCGu+zh+HAPiQbShqqyBiCFos+BUB9/3eBNxCEtkDD+dghZ5 tgOvqlDmm0UFW8fghWJ2LRjzs+XctNNNTHHlgJkIQnXI4U4yGWVkQKVRScSBfm/E t4BsVfD/37hrOHbImf5G15i1/6P3Ds3fKpoNWxF72+mp2/7q/hIJccWeZ0GNddjt iqYEknBa5KWh8H9JrudiKNthUX66tZxe9KlOEAlBdzmw40SwZfUI7A== =87t3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Thu Dec 17 11:17:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155D01A886C for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:17:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id irW6Swnz8AE4 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:17:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3DD61A87ED for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:17:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5995; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1450379845; x=1451589445; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=RmAP/1kJfm+0hefRM6Elm3O7zNEZ8IFQx/2Uvcd0db0=; b=EpcBFG6h+BUfESZTcIHE5Us9LvFIXB0BjgEiXWnjtPUfjesUOIv6b0a6 xdZdjoQg2CvHz+USFdU6d9m0F0h1Ta12LCGwjiydr/8JaeJnDyg0MU0n/ u2f8OcugyIYof9vVfTKpw6Y+KN3K6MZqTNuymjamObEJ+rfvPho+dCELH E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AzAgDNCHNW/5BdJa1egm5MUm0GvVMBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFiIYVsAoE6OBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENQEBBHkQAgEIPwcyFBECBA4FiBoDEg65Lw2?= =?us-ascii?q?EKQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARQEhlYBhH2CU4FMaYQ4BY1whReDdgGFO?= =?us-ascii?q?IgPgVyERZMIg3MBIAEBQoQEcoN1gQgBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,442,1444694400"; d="scan'208,217";a="217826810" Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Dec 2015 19:17:25 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBHJHOHX011852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:17:25 GMT Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:17:24 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:17:24 -0600 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: roll Thread-Topic: New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHRNCTPlo212fiu/0y5dIhtYE2Ogp7Pp44A Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:17:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.5] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D2987350F42F2aretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson , Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:17:28 -0000 --_000_D2987350F42F2aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! I like the direction of the proposed charter, and the discussion that it ha= s generated - and will support it then the time comes. However, the IESG will want to see clear progress on the currently chartere= d items (use of RPI..) before approving a a new one. Thanks! Alvaro. On 12/11/15, 10:01 AM, "Ines Robles" > wrote: Dear all: We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charter = [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us know your op= inion about this. If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let us kn= ow as well. Charter proposed might be: RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful deployments= . Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the data pla= ne of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as well as the = standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism. The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL prot= ocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 to Interne= t Standard. Thank you very much, Michael and Ines. --_000_D2987350F42F2aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <7D11DEE18C56DA44BDD64239F563AA1A@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

I like the direction of the proposed charter, and the discussion that = it has generated — and will support it then the time comes.

However, the IESG will want to see clear progress on the currently cha= rtered items (use of RPI..) before approving a a new one.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On 12/11/15, 10:01 AM, "Ines Robles" <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> wrote= :


= Dear all:


= We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charter [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], plea= se let us know your opinion about this.


= If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let us know as well.


= Charter proposed might be:


= RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful deployments.

= Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the data plane of when to use IPinIP headers,= and how to compress them, as well as the standardization of a mixed storin= g/non-storing mechanism.

= The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL protocol, with the aim of eventually revising a= nd advancing RFC 6550 to Internet Standard.


= Thank you very much,


Michael and Ines.
 --_000_D2987350F42F2aretanaciscocom_-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 02:03:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A6D1B352F for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:03:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rzFJzqmH6ss3 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:03:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x22c.google.com (mail-lb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00B381B352D for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:03:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id yq9so41324219lbb.3 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:03:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=3888Z2sm1C3rrZbvkK6BMU4uMwdhgV5yIos6HEmSkXg=; b=ZneBvJxKVvl9F5K/3ZX1PJCb+bE962w1+s57GhmEl/mP2rNR1xs2R+SBSlFX3WVpPc jKzsUllrJjUgv46AjtP8Yjcy48kiKqa1wNNalwS5ExmMsRHFDCV0344VuC4Qrfvrv5fo DJQdIBXRineSLV7VOm99ZzEHkz8343xlN/MH/q44zFESbsKTRdEU8Omb25hoOVhiB4Sr nKIN8do1fuHDPGeQJlUGyDKHs+MIWIm5A9kk92lSzeVSy1Ac3WI4zcxpFzboTYG2iBN2 oY11CgUCX7YTWonYToslln3iwznjtrTYgGERqqdpNe4iBX1MfphzSKhm1OXv3FcZITcG tpfA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.11.169 with SMTP id r9mr995869lbb.8.1450432993194; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:03:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.151.143 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:03:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:03:13 -0300 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3d3165480180527293fac Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson , roll Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:03:17 -0000 --001a11c3d3165480180527293fac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Agree, thank you very much Alvaro. Apologizes for late reply, I was in a trip and I am still on a trip and I dont have permanent access to Internet. Cheers, Ines. 2015-12-17 16:17 GMT-03:00 Alvaro Retana (aretana) : > Hi! > > I like the direction of the proposed charter, and the discussion that it > has generated =E2=80=94 and will support it then the time comes. > > However, the IESG will want to see clear progress on the currently > chartered items (use of RPI..) before approving a a new one. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > On 12/11/15, 10:01 AM, "Ines Robles" > wrote: > > > Dear all: > > We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charte= r > [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us know your > opinion about this. > > If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let us > know as well. > > Charter proposed might be: > > RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful > deployments. > > Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the data > plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as well as > the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism. > > The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL > protocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 to > Internet Standard. > > Thank you very much, > > Michael and Ines. > > --001a11c3d3165480180527293fac Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

Agree, thank you very much Alvaro.<= /div>

Apologizes for late reply, I was in a trip and I a= m still on a trip and I dont have permanent access to Internet.=C2=A0
=

Cheers,

Ines.



2015-12-17 16:17 GMT-03:00 Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.= com>:
Hi!

I like the direction of the proposed charter, and the discussion that = it has generated =E2=80=94 and will support it then the time comes.

However, the IESG will want to see clear progress on the currently cha= rtered items (use of RPI..) before approving a a new one.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
On 12/11/15, 10:01 AM, "Ines Robles" <mariainesrobles@googlemail= .com> wrote:


= Dear all:


= We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charter [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/c= harter/], please let us know your opinion about this.


= If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let us know as well.


= Charter proposed might be:


= RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful deployments.

= Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the data plane of when to use IPinIP headers,= and how to compress them, as well as the standardization of a mixed storin= g/non-storing mechanism.

= The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL protocol, with the aim of eventually revising a= nd advancing RFC 6550 to Internet Standard.


= Thank you very much,


Michael and Ines.

--001a11c3d3165480180527293fac-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 02:23:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D4B1B3562 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:23:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nAP6yTZWCpj7 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:23:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x235.google.com (mail-lf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59BB41B3565 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:23:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id z124so64757556lfa.3 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:23:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tQ2zHx86Qy1EVAztgwEJT1KQh0JuYxEaGnJf4nG8Yns=; b=uH6gM8mloNwr0C0qyaVGh9HmYAaXlNa90XOZBe4sgUIfs8zeOEUduHnEZ20BTuhPba B4OiMGYX/47kQd70gHV7hqA+ucgLoCzpohyfyb99nuFofdqiHovAu3nAoon6MGtsUEEs yD17VZcXEsT2qjhFITz9ecw5YvG8Bt90xjONtOAFcwkRhCDguyh3rBX+2QcI1dh25eSI 5C0GZELjiJepOyHQV3PvFJmmkfam9oz8j11RuzgUvF2pvXPumxSxHqH3boLrlFutiDep JjNynUjrXRSY0JpuZUap0JcsFy6Ys0p5qwa9zzeSAMqIUfzDncC1lkTWqiF12pYL23Q/ HWAw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.44.75 with SMTP id s72mr956816lfs.139.1450434183534; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:23:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.151.143 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:23:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:23:03 -0300 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: roll Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113db38647a2ec052729868e Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: [Roll] WG adoption call - When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:23:07 -0000 --001a113db38647a2ec052729868e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for the following draft: When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/ Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D) to= the mailing list on adopting this document as a ROLL WG document. This call will end at 00:00 UTC on January 10, 2016. Regards, Michael and Ines. --001a113db38647a2ec052729868e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=C2=A0Dear all,

This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for the fo= llowing draft:


When to use RF= C 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 -=C2=A0

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draf= t-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/


Please send your op= inion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D) to the mailing list o= n=C2=A0adopting=C2=A0this document as a ROLL=C2=A0<= span class=3D"">WG=C2=A0document.

=C2=A0

This=C2=A0call=C2=A0will end at = 00:00 UTC on January 10, 2016.


Regards,

Michael and Ines.

--001a113db38647a2ec052729868e-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 02:25:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7061B3565 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:25:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.937 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.937 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5GUGHYrG_6q1 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:25:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DDA61A8741 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:25:35 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,445,1444687200"; d="scan'208";a="192905825" Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 18 Dec 2015 11:25:33 +0100 Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id p187so58730548wmp.0 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:25:33 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.47.231 with SMTP id g7mr3115181wjn.42.1450434333402; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:25:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.27.136.66 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:25:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:25:13 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacb094366c2c0527298fb3 Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] WG adoption call - When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:25:38 -0000 --047d7bacb094366c2c0527298fb3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ines Robles < mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Dear all, > > This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for the following draft: > > > When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 - > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/ > > > Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D) = to the mailing list on adopting this > document as a ROLL WG document. > > > > This call will end at 00:00 UTC on January 10, 2016. > > > Regards, > > Michael and Ines. > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --=20 _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --047d7bacb094366c2c0527298fb3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ines Robles &= lt;mari= ainesrobles@googlemail.com> wrote:

=C2=A0Dear all,

This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call fo= r the following draft:

When t= o use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 -=C2=A0

https://dat= atracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/


Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80= =9D) to the mailing list on=C2=A0adopting=C2=A0this document a= s a ROLL=C2=A0WG=C2=A0document.

=C2=A0

This=C2=A0call=C2=A0will end at 00:00 U= TC on January 10, 2016.

<= br>

Regards,

Michael and Ines.


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll




--
_______________= ________________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Sci= entist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH
<= br>
_______________________________________
--047d7bacb094366c2c0527298fb3-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 03:38:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D331A913F for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:38:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nla8ruvvSIIf for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:38:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52F121A90C5 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:38:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id p187so60654920wmp.0 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:38:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QSRf/TdP9MqNKN0Ri0yTmXrrnGC4xyN3KK9oP3VjRIY=; b=mnApLBDDMQCLj7vyTKxaGFFb5/mVrZYsYCxfqeQokAv/k5qopqKQZNGfOITOBFL58i LIBznPxIU4vpB+HQrIkqhN6AQunWrMqyOPlMhx3R1/beB5n7jH9e2EWhOmyqczbSB0wn rZEJQ29BAOH2QTXqmfYZuKOa8fhbtdChRzStb5VfTKmGiI3x6jU8uwkLtkU6mZJS45Sf a5Y8btRFIpIV4VGRdNfzTaos2U2j3W7GVxe4mwQcDx4iFOlcZn0nXK7biqMgoHYLDdKc 9ktE22LwmDkYd3SRclS6kUR6rnRexNaA1yfUcpeLXLIBYD1D5VGkvkn5JF0nefus9Chc YtRg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.129.139 with SMTP id c133mr2673234wmd.30.1450438705836; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:38:25 -0800 (PST) Sender: xvilajosana@gmail.com Received: by 10.27.51.69 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:38:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:38:25 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: V9rEBhyVLcC2hiQy2u8pU1yrPxs Message-ID: From: Xavier Vilajosana To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11420926d47c6505272a9355 Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] WG adoption call - When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:38:29 -0000 --001a11420926d47c6505272a9355 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Yes" this draft is really helpful for those implementing IP in IP and RPL. regards, Xavi 2015-12-18 11:25 GMT+01:00 Thomas Watteyne : > Yes > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ines Robles < > mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> Dear all, >> >> This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for the following draft: >> >> >> When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 - >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/ >> >> >> Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D)= to the mailing list on adopting this >> document as a ROLL WG document. >> >> >> >> This call will end at 00:00 UTC on January 10, 2016. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Michael and Ines. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Roll mailing list >> Roll@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >> >> > > > -- > _______________________________________ > > Thomas Watteyne, PhD > Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria > Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech > Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN > Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH > > www.thomaswatteyne.com > _______________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --001a11420926d47c6505272a9355 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Yes"

this draft is really he= lpful for those implementing IP in IP and RPL.

reg= ards,
Xavi

2015-12-18 11:25 GMT+01:00 Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne= @inria.fr>:
Yes

<= div class=3D"h5">On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<= p style=3D"font-size:12.8px;margin-left:36pt">=C2=A0Dear all,

This= starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for the following draft:


When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-= in-IPv6 -=C2=A0

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ro= bles-roll-useofrplinfo/


Please send your opinio= n (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D) to the mailing list on=C2= =A0adopting=C2=A0this document as a ROLL=C2=A0WG= =C2=A0document.

=C2=A0

This= =C2=A0call=C2=A0will end at 00:00 UTC on January 10, 2016.

=


Regards,

Michael and Ines.


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


<= /font>


--
=
________= _______________________________
=
Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Resea= rch Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear T= ech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6Ti= SCH

_______________________________________

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


--001a11420926d47c6505272a9355-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 04:16:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E961B2C89 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 04:16:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ho-fIi4xrj-K for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 04:16:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA88A1B2C1F for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 04:16:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id l126so61735873wml.0 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 04:16:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail-udp-cl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=sBsugawZn/SqTEu17/jDgjwvqEDnF2toDhe0qwfeH2k=; b=guRj49X2ZrqDRCF8z+BRzJpkrb9/1Ke/8kYkOHauRRvFaNDP6ienjYWIjBvGm5O4Uf 5KXd1jIXcknFAy+TvzSpaB49bdWktjqAX/U90R66dT7ZnbMe9hOqFqhAvwU2luFfFsb4 BDwtwm+crsfV1TsyIiB6BRogTmKv3zyM/mjtZ4k6Ndoyh2VzNDn/HlsNkGQSZoH3uUfP hxeyKle85KLrbT+isBY+6mMZb0IKc1JWYrZOaO/Wo1J0fWDz7ToFCkpQy/EddSnK5drk K6ot2CmTHiGBbk5skWkn8ll7OudQHL+BbX5UC82kQQnSVSQ1qdjNvY8ZwCkpegTxvf5t tLgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=sBsugawZn/SqTEu17/jDgjwvqEDnF2toDhe0qwfeH2k=; b=X79qySGFCESICNgScsnGTgh9BfwncoiramvPiYnJNrf3L8YZEtWv43pgHjXQHsnG0j Q7XYDc6JHFGvqb5Y+khcBGTdeG3p6NK7c5UUtuTDnncrIMLKRA0wVBTXBvtz8lTePfJd MEkvLef0+V43XCjCZXoiLEGdJfkpwAZSQNcuGZJMPBVav5h4kVoArFiV91qYNE15Fu6y SHeCESSH7bMKVDfvuLXu6FPAxrS1bsXPnKkaqbl9l9rAwMsE2Kn1UUoeYnbWp+YGF2nB m4BThnKSTTWogg3Skj7VdWxlpvJ+a7THhO3o0DMmSiIzutYJ9tPDYRDSB7Hon3JufCK6 C6Yg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmLBzyf2GZOweiX+3AUz3BQ8/7h6bQhyS+nSkhEqqDYxX6okpUoGHldTnRjJr08XJyUlLJuxEyYyKAELt56nAV3OG5Y1Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.131.80 with SMTP id f77mr3062696wmd.0.1450440992238; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 04:16:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.154.138 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 04:16:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:16:32 -0300 Message-ID: From: "Prof. Diego Dujovne" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144315e1c417005272b1c9d Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] WG adoption call - When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:16:39 -0000 --001a1144315e1c417005272b1c9d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, I agree to adopt this document. Regards, Diego 2015-12-18 8:38 GMT-03:00 Xavier Vilajosana = : > "Yes" > > this draft is really helpful for those implementing IP in IP and RPL. > > regards, > Xavi > > 2015-12-18 11:25 GMT+01:00 Thomas Watteyne : > >> Yes >> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ines Robles < >> mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for the following draft: >>> >>> >>> When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 - >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/ >>> >>> >>> Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D= ) to the mailing list on adopting this >>> document as a ROLL WG document. >>> >>> >>> >>> This call will end at 00:00 UTC on January 10, 2016. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Michael and Ines. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Roll mailing list >>> Roll@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________ >> >> Thomas Watteyne, PhD >> Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria >> Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech >> Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN >> Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH >> >> www.thomaswatteyne.com >> _______________________________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 DIEGO DUJOVNE Acad=C3=A9mico Escuela de Ingenier=C3=ADa en Inform=C3=A1tica y Telecomunic= aciones Facultad de Ingenier=C3=ADa UDP www.ingenieria.udp.cl (56 2) 676 8125 --001a1144315e1c417005272b1c9d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, I agree to adopt this document.
Re= gards,

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Diego

2015-12-18 8:38 GMT-03:00 Xavier Vilajosana <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>:
"Yes"

this draft is= really helpful for those implementing IP in IP and RPL.

regards,
Xavi
=

2015-12-18 11:25 = GMT+01:00 Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr>:=
Yes

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 = at 11:23 AM, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com= > wrote:

=C2=A0Dear all,

This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for th= e following draft:


When to us= e RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 -=C2=A0

https://datatra= cker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/


Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D)= to the mailing list on=C2=A0adopting=C2=A0this document as a = ROLL=C2=A0WG=C2=A0document.

=C2=A0

This=C2=A0call=C2=A0will end at 00:00 UTC o= n January 10, 2016.


<= /p>

Regards,

Michael and Ines.


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll




--
_______________________________________
Thomas Watteyne, PhD
= Research Scientist & Innovator, Inr= ia
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC = Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

__= _____________________________________

_______________________________________________
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




--
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Acad=C3=A9mico Escuela de Ingenier=C3=ADa en I= nform=C3=A1tica y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingenier=C3=ADa UDP
= www.ingenieria.u= dp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125
--001a1144315e1c417005272b1c9d-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 06:26:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52BCE1B2DF1 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Jz5xQ522yH9 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DB981B2A64 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id t125so111868442qkh.3 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:31 -0800 (PST) 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=27KzufAhJdstffaSeJsRtf6u8kNPQPVe0QIhl/XncJ0=; b=p2jURi5E72vk6tl5Hq0sKVqAP0YBHKTOMpulGQfy8U2gzzJ0j/8cygiS3XvIhQVNRg ehdcnVsCwhKmoCz1uRb+0/feTHnrc93cEtbooUoU6DRyGMySWVODrwdzoIq/xs58eUsN 3KgAp5Va2tkx0131ImH99i40lk2MWAthDAIzypL0wU0D4OaJm5vPnZonxSdIOeYr80WO CuEX4M7lf4rLj28aqL2VSDIxXeIqGbHm728I07g0w3aLtpg151thVjZZpGiU/5ey6k2f F6JzBtQO67+wq6KlZM6d5960/mWXhFVlLbKMRT0YkxgZiTf/bs0wafyCld0EcPHyaEMF 43uQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.212.92 with SMTP id l89mr5387653qki.70.1450448790228; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.95.22 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com> References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <23010.1450031144@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:26:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149de9ce8130105272cec2b Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson , Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:26:33 -0000 --001a1149de9ce8130105272cec2b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair has to ask the working group to say what they want to be in scope. What is done so far is that our group chair is asking for new charter but still has the old scope of one protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has the power to change the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussion. So hope the chair does not make conclusions on what is out of scope because nothing is out of scope until WG decides. We only know what is in scope when we get the approvals of our suggested addition out-scope to be in-scope. Therefore, we can support Turner's proposals. On Sunday, December 13, 2015, Randy Turner wrote: > I thought the discussion was around developing a new charter. If that's > the case then nothing is "in scope" yet. If we're not discussing potentia= l > work items for a new charter then what is this thread about again? I wou= ld > be happy to work up a draft if that's what is required to get things "in > scope" > > R. > > > On Dec 13, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: > > > > > > Randy Turner > wrote: > >> The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to this > >> =E2=80=9Chybrid=E2=80=9D, but specific to multicast. Something like = =E2=80=9CNon-storing with > >> multicast-storing=E2=80=9D > > > >> This would be basically a non-storing mode of operation, except a node > >> would just store multicast memberships that have been declared - if > >> someone joins a multicast group, you store this=E2=80=A6since membersh= ips can > >> be aggregated, it shouldn=E2=80=99t mean too much of a burden on the a= mount of > >> memory required to store multicast routes. > > > > Write an ID, slides, etc.. > > If the IESG approves the proposed charter, it would be in scope. > > (Today, it is not) > > > > -- > > 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 > --001a1149de9ce8130105272cec2b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair has to ask the work= ing group to say what they want to be in scope. What is done so far is that= our group chair is asking for new charter but still has the old scope of o= ne protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has the power to change = the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussion.=C2=A0
So hop= e the chair does not make conclusions on what is out of scope because nothi= ng is out of scope until WG decides. We only know what is in scope when we = get the approvals of our suggested addition out-scope to be in-scope. There= fore, we can support Turner's proposals.=C2=A0

On Sunday, Decemb= er 13, 2015, Randy Turner <= rturner@amalfisystems.com> wrote:
= I thought the discussion was around developing a new charter. If that's= the case then nothing is "in scope" yet. If we're not discus= sing potential work items for a new charter then what is this thread about = again?=C2=A0 I would be happy to work up a draft if that's what is requ= ired to get things "in scope"

R.

> On Dec 13, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Randy Turner <rturner@amalfisystems.com> wrote:
>> The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to t= his
>> =E2=80=9Chybrid=E2=80=9D, but specific to multicast. Something lik= e =E2=80=9CNon-storing with
>> multicast-storing=E2=80=9D
>
>> This would be basically a non-storing mode of operation, except a = node
>> would just store multicast memberships that have been declared - i= f
>> someone joins a multicast group, you store this=E2=80=A6since memb= erships can
>> be aggregated, it shouldn=E2=80=99t mean too much of a burden on t= he amount of
>> memory required to store multicast routes.
>
> Write an ID, slides, etc..
> If the IESG approves the proposed charter, it would be in scope.
> (Today, it is not)
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca&= gt;, Sandelman Software Works
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rol= l/charter/
>

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
--001a1149de9ce8130105272cec2b-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 06:41:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7CA1B366C for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:41:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Vf3uUzWdjvS for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:41:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6EA61B2E0A for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:41:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12014; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1450449690; x=1451659290; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=k6CP2K7Ziedi3fOjq2AO9GoAJbPkfNpKfTFdfjYLJiU=; b=fh2l3fox4A4+50nRwZGQJNb96HBNVnKCSKa4cdI8qj4wHU6K+TMoNAJI RrlamnkdOurtAvzdfxYJaa7luHWoqzgl+K7nNHsKJX7dz//n3KU14HUyb c8Vin5gGEmuSODrmIYuarUCG0asxi8lt1wFdv3mAQylFCXkHlXjQYONfe M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AWAgDOGnRW/40NJK1egm5MUm0GvVABD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFiFwEJhWwCHIEbOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENAEBAQQBAQEaBgpBCxACAQgRBAEBKAM?= =?us-ascii?q?CAgIlCxQJCAIEDgUIiBIDEg6rSI05DYQpAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBG?= =?us-ascii?q?IZWhH6BQIETgWtKCQiCXoFJBZMIg3cBhTqICIFjhEWTFINzASABAUKEBHKECYE?= =?us-ascii?q?IAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,446,1444694400"; d="scan'208,217";a="218957818" Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Dec 2015 14:41:30 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBIEfTFM018413 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:41:29 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:41:29 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:41:28 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] WG adoption call - When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 Thread-Index: AQHROX5zsV7q0bw6ykSVWlcQ+Mi6SZ7Q0MBA Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:41:08 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:40:24 +0000 Message-ID: <14e88c1f95da4603bb4cec3359415d3c@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.60.6.50] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_14e88c1f95da4603bb4cec3359415d3cXCHRCD001ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] WG adoption call - When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:41:32 -0000 --_000_14e88c1f95da4603bb4cec3359415d3cXCHRCD001ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 WWVzDQoNClBhc2NhbA0KDQpGcm9tOiBSb2xsIFttYWlsdG86cm9sbC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3Jn XSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgVGhvbWFzIFdhdHRleW5lDQpTZW50OiB2ZW5kcmVkaSAxOCBkw6ljZW1i cmUgMjAxNSAxMToyNQ0KVG86IFJvdXRpbmcgT3ZlciBMb3cgcG93ZXIgYW5kIExvc3N5IG5ldHdv cmtzIDxyb2xsQGlldGYub3JnPg0KQ2M6IE1pY2hhZWwgUmljaGFyZHNvbiA8bWNyK2lldGZAc2Fu ZGVsbWFuLmNhPg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtSb2xsXSBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbiBjYWxsIC0gV2hlbiB0 byB1c2UgUkZDIDY1NTMsIDY1NTQgYW5kIElQdjYtaW4tSVB2Ng0KDQpZZXMNCg0KT24gRnJpLCBE ZWMgMTgsIDIwMTUgYXQgMTE6MjMgQU0sIEluZXMgUm9ibGVzIDxtYXJpYWluZXNyb2JsZXNAZ29v Z2xlbWFpbC5jb208bWFpbHRvOm1hcmlhaW5lc3JvYmxlc0Bnb29nbGVtYWlsLmNvbT4+IHdyb3Rl Og0KDQoNCiBEZWFyIGFsbCwNCg0KVGhpcyBzdGFydHMgYSBST0xMIFdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgYWRv cHRpb24gY2FsbCBmb3IgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBkcmFmdDoNCg0KDQoNCldoZW4gdG8gdXNlIFJG QyA2NTUzLCA2NTU0IGFuZCBJUHY2LWluLUlQdjYgLQ0KDQpodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmll dGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1yb2JsZXMtcm9sbC11c2VvZnJwbGluZm8vDQoNCg0KDQpQbGVhc2Ug c2VuZCB5b3VyIG9waW5pb24gKOKAnFllc+KAnSBvciDigJxOb+KAnSkgdG8gdGhlIG1haWxpbmcg bGlzdCBvbiBhZG9wdGluZyB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGFzIGEgUk9MTCBXRyBkb2N1bWVudC4NCg0K DQoNClRoaXMgY2FsbCB3aWxsIGVuZCBhdCAwMDowMCBVVEMgb24gSmFudWFyeSAxMCwgMjAxNi4N Cg0KDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMsDQoNCk1pY2hhZWwgYW5kIEluZXMuDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpSb2xsIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KUm9sbEBp ZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86Um9sbEBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxt YW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcm9sbA0KDQoNCg0KLS0NCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fXw0KDQpUaG9tYXMgV2F0dGV5bmUsIFBoRA0KUmVzZWFyY2ggU2NpZW50aXN0ICYg SW5ub3ZhdG9yLCBJbnJpYQ0KU3IgTmV0d29ya2luZyBEZXNpZ24gRW5nLCBMaW5lYXIgVGVjaA0K Rm91bmRlciAmIGNvLWxlYWQsIFVDIEJlcmtlbGV5IE9wZW5XU04NCkNvLWNoYWlyLCBJRVRGIDZU aVNDSA0KDQp3d3cudGhvbWFzd2F0dGV5bmUuY29tPGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudGhvbWFzd2F0dGV5bmUu Y29tPg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo= --_000_14e88c1f95da4603bb4cec3359415d3cXCHRCD001ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTUgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0IDUgMyA1IDQgNiAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1m YWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAy IDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWws IGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBjbTsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJ Zm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIixzZXJpZjt9 DQphOmxpbmssIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCglj b2xvcjpibHVlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBzcGFu Lk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpw dXJwbGU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpwDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlv cml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGNtOw0K CW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBjbTsNCglmb250LXNp emU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLHNlcmlmO30NCnNwYW4u RW1haWxTdHlsZTE4DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmOw0KCWNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1 bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmki LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6NjEyLjBwdCA3OTIuMHB0 Ow0KCW1hcmdpbjo3MC44NXB0IDcwLjg1cHQgNzAuODVwdCA3MC44NXB0O30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2Vj dGlvbjENCgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28g OV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlZGVmYXVsdHMgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiIC8+ DQo8L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlbGF5 b3V0IHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0Ij4NCjxvOmlkbWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KPC9v OnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0PjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJvZHkgbGFuZz0iRU4t VVMiIGxpbms9ImJsdWUiIHZsaW5rPSJwdXJwbGUiPg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iV29yZFNlY3Rpb24x Ij4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5Z ZXM8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5n PSJGUiIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZx dW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwv cD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkZSIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXpl OjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6 IzFGNDk3RCI+UGFzY2FsPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJy aSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcD4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkIGJsdWUgMS41 cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowY20gMGNtIDBjbSA0LjBwdCI+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBzdHlsZT0iYm9yZGVy Om5vbmU7Ym9yZGVyLXRvcDpzb2xpZCAjRTFFMUUxIDEuMHB0O3BhZGRpbmc6My4wcHQgMGNtIDBj bSAwY20iPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTox MS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5Gcm9tOjwv c3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7 Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4gUm9sbCBbbWFpbHRvOnJvbGwtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRm Lm9yZ10NCjxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+VGhvbWFzIFdhdHRleW5lPGJyPg0KPGI+U2VudDo8 L2I+IHZlbmRyZWRpIDE4IGTDqWNlbWJyZSAyMDE1IDExOjI1PGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiBSb3V0 aW5nIE92ZXIgTG93IHBvd2VyIGFuZCBMb3NzeSBuZXR3b3JrcyAmbHQ7cm9sbEBpZXRmLm9yZyZn dDs8YnI+DQo8Yj5DYzo8L2I+IE1pY2hhZWwgUmljaGFyZHNvbiAmbHQ7bWNyJiM0MztpZXRmQHNh bmRlbG1hbi5jYSZndDs8YnI+DQo8Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4gUmU6IFtSb2xsXSBXRyBhZG9wdGlv biBjYWxsIC0gV2hlbiB0byB1c2UgUkZDIDY1NTMsIDY1NTQgYW5kIElQdjYtaW4tSVB2NjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5ZZXM8bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5i c3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPk9uIEZyaSwgRGVjIDE4 LCAyMDE1IGF0IDExOjIzIEFNLCBJbmVzIFJvYmxlcyAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOm1hcmlh aW5lc3JvYmxlc0Bnb29nbGVtYWlsLmNvbSIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPm1hcmlhaW5lc3JvYmxl c0Bnb29nbGVtYWlsLmNvbTwvYT4mZ3Q7IHdyb3RlOjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGJsb2NrcXVv dGUgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkICNDQ0NDQ0MgMS4wcHQ7cGFk ZGluZzowY20gMGNtIDBjbSA2LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tbGVmdDo0LjhwdDttYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGNt Ij4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxw IHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDozNi4wcHQiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6OS41cHQi PiZuYnNwO0RlYXIgYWxsLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4t bGVmdDozNi4wcHQiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6OS41cHQiPlRoaXMgc3RhcnRzIGEg Uk9MTCBXb3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGFkb3B0aW9uIGNhbGwgZm9yIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgZHJhZnQ6 PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBwdCI+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTo5LjVwdCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0K PHAgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBwdCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTo5LjVw dCI+V2hlbiB0byB1c2UgUkZDIDY1NTMsIDY1NTQgYW5kIElQdjYtaW4tSVB2NiAtJm5ic3A7PC9z cGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBwdCI+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTo5LjVwdCI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRm Lm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtcm9ibGVzLXJvbGwtdXNlb2ZycGxpbmZvLyIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsi Pmh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LXJvYmxlcy1yb2xsLXVzZW9m cnBsaW5mby88L2E+PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0 OjM2LjBwdCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTo5LjVwdCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBwdCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZTo5LjVwdCI+UGxlYXNlIHNlbmQgeW91ciBvcGluaW9uICjigJxZZXPigJ0gb3Ig4oCc Tm/igJ0pIHRvIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qgb24mbmJzcDthZG9wdGluZyZuYnNwO3RoaXMgZG9j dW1lbnQgYXMgYSBST0xMJm5ic3A7V0cmbmJzcDtkb2N1bWVudC48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQo8cCBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzYuMHB0Ij48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXpl OjkuNXB0Ij4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxl ZnQ6MzYuMHB0Ij48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjkuNXB0Ij5UaGlzJm5ic3A7Y2FsbCZu YnNwO3dpbGwgZW5kIGF0IDAwOjAwIFVUQyBvbiBKYW51YXJ5IDEwLCAyMDE2LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDozNi4wcHQiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJm b250LXNpemU6OS41cHQiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIHN0eWxlPSJt YXJnaW4tbGVmdDozNi4wcHQiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6OS41cHQiPlJlZ2FyZHMs PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBwdCI+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTo5LjVwdCI+TWljaGFlbCBhbmQgSW5lcy48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tYm90 dG9tOjEyLjBwdCI+PGJyPg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX188YnI+DQpSb2xsIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdDxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpSb2xs QGlldGYub3JnIj5Sb2xsQGlldGYub3JnPC9hPjxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmll dGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcm9sbCIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3 LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcm9sbDwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvYmxv Y2txdW90ZT4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48 L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxiciBjbGVhcj0iYWxsIj4NCjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+ PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj4tLSA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxk aXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7Ij5fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX188L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwv ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LWZhbWls eTomcXVvdDtDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyZxdW90OyI+VGhvbWFzIFdhdHRleW5lLCBQaEQ8L3NwYW4+PG86 cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q291cmllciBOZXcmcXVvdDsiPlJlc2VhcmNoIFNjaWVu dGlzdCAmYW1wOyBJbm5vdmF0b3IsIElucmlhPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+ DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZx dW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7Ij5TciBOZXR3b3JraW5nIERlc2lnbiBFbmcsIExpbmVhciBU ZWNoPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7Ij5G b3VuZGVyICZhbXA7IGNvLWxlYWQsIFVDIEJlcmtlbGV5IE9wZW5XU048L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286 cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0i Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q291cmllciBOZXcmcXVvdDsiPkNvLWNoYWlyLCBJRVRGIDZUaVND SDwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7Ij48 YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRob21hc3dhdHRleW5lLmNvbSIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPnd3 dy50aG9tYXN3YXR0ZXluZS5jb208L2E+PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90 O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7Ij5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X188L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== --_000_14e88c1f95da4603bb4cec3359415d3cXCHRCD001ciscocom_-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 06:46:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CD01B3658 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:46:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oAil-9EyWkg4 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:46:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0774.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::774]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 696A81B2E06 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:46:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from DB5PR01MB1080.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.162.152.142) by DB5PR01MB1077.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.162.152.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.361.13; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:45:43 +0000 Received: from DB5PR01MB1080.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([10.162.152.142]) by DB5PR01MB1080.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([10.162.152.142]) with mapi id 15.01.0361.006; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:45:43 +0000 From: "Turner, Randy" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] WG adoption call - When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 Thread-Index: AQHROX4an5gWqvo3rE+PyIlEncApWJ7Q0o7l Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:45:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Randy.Turner@landisgyr.com; x-originating-ip: [2601:cb:c000:8248:e10b:4229:912d:9f29] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB5PR01MB1077; 5:QhQLsg5sT6hCUsFAutdSjVPMwXAk1Qkkb0pmYP9efx3HNNoN9m6crbYtLCh632AErl+B6O2FneaP8F/OqMj8knT3aycDUoQLLceodTRaGRz23SXmjvmu8vT8OS1LSfyuzbJl4c9Am+xo3XSsoTe9kQ==; 24:pYAMBF340r3Xb3KaHMHRATfZAv0xHqbGn64F1gS+WbfIIRy2Br5GZoXmUgK1JaooE3G+KrLmN5NogetB4wbauPqzYQWF7I2UMd/XmCwwpb0= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB5PR01MB1077; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(8415204561270); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(520078)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:DB5PR01MB1077; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB5PR01MB1077; x-forefront-prvs: 07943272E1 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(24454002)(19580395003)(77096005)(2900100001)(33656002)(1096002)(5001960100002)(16236675004)(586003)(54356999)(107886002)(36756003)(15975445007)(101416001)(82746002)(230783001)(6116002)(102836003)(5008740100001)(5890100001)(5002640100001)(40100003)(92566002)(76176999)(10400500002)(189998001)(1220700001)(11100500001)(5004730100002)(50986999)(106356001)(106116001)(122556002)(110136002)(87936001)(81156007)(450100001)(19617315012)(2950100001)(105586002)(83716003)(19580405001)(86362001)(97736004)(3826002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB5PR01MB1077; H:DB5PR01MB1080.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: landisgyr.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C3123A2235B74D89BEC0B9ABB5280214landisgyrcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: landisgyr.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Dec 2015 14:45:43.0447 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: ee2cd48b-958f-4be4-9852-b8f104c001b9 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB5PR01MB1077 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] WG adoption call - When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:46:08 -0000 --_000_C3123A2235B74D89BEC0B9ABB5280214landisgyrcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes On Dec 18, 2015, at 5:23 AM, Ines Robles > wrote: Dear all, This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for the following draft: When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/ Please send your opinion ("Yes" or "No") to the mailing list on adopting th= is document as a ROLL WG document. This call will end at 00:00 UTC on January 10, 2016. Regards, Michael and Ines. _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll P PLEASE CONSIDER OUR ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL. This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally = privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized represent= ative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using, copying or d= istributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have = received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by retu= rn e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank = you. --_000_C3123A2235B74D89BEC0B9ABB5280214landisgyrcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes


On Dec 18, 2015, at 5:23 AM, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> wrote:


 Dear all,

This starts a ROLL Working g= roup adoption call for the following draft:


When to use = RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 - 

https://da= tatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/


Please send your opinion (&#= 8220;Yes” or “No”) to the mailing list on adopting this document as a ROLL W= G document.

 

This c= all will end at 00:00 UTC on January 10, 2016.


Regards,

Michael and Ines.

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

P PLEA= SE CONSIDER OUR ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL.

This e-mail (including any attachments) is con= fidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipie= nt or an authorized representative of an intended recipient, you are prohib= ited from using, copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have received th= is e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail a= nd delete all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.

--_000_C3123A2235B74D89BEC0B9ABB5280214landisgyrcom_-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 07:19:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67041B368F for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:19:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v3RW7dBrigcX for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:19:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x231.google.com (mail-qg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0427C1B342B for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:19:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k90so55912217qge.0 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:19:09 -0800 (PST) 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=c30DG/QUE+VgrN5/nXzfoPc1Moyo0R42h0jWSjSTWEA=; b=Mo+awU7ovnw9SWHBn0bo5bmFKe0ZJRkUTwTF1nGUS2xogkYvSCw4nLiHt8z0r1QfvI oM1q17qhkWXqzkbzxkhjPqxXcBU57DyYKPeF8sp7NmWm3P4kn80V/izIxaE/dGFnwF74 zZ2PG9ew9Zv0dZo/pfcFykxCqifql9sQ/z4LLsUVj0mGbbJjKCB/gejWIJ8tkfmSNf7z XEheWlMM6IW7qW21ZGxptlxchr07aCAgd2A16dzuML2VIcH3JOIGtYJMGeLFbtUkggvs SPK8MpjCOaiuTk5V9SfoQLkt+2ef50hOKQzkdHZN/ciJNn7zPhDIrfgfsuSC2I1OcHXk xaKg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.32.53 with SMTP id g50mr5693994qgg.47.1450451949213; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:19:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.95.22 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:19:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:19:09 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a7d8a325ef705272da926 Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Roll] WG adoption call - When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:19:11 -0000 --001a113a7d8a325ef705272da926 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support the body of the document but don't support the adoption only if it is an update document of rfc6553 and rfc6554. Having many info documents for one protocol is confusing. Specially when this document is tilted as use cases or applicability considerations for one protocol. I think any ietf protocol already needs to have its applicabilities in one place that can be updated in future. Furthermore I suggest the title to be change ( without using RFC numbers but using words). AB University of Tripoli On Friday, December 18, 2015, Ines Robles wrote: > > Dear all, > > This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for the following draft: > > > When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 - > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/ > > > Please send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D) = to the mailing list on adopting this > document as a ROLL WG document. > > > > This call will end at 00:00 UTC on January 10, 2016. > > > Regards, > > Michael and Ines. > --001a113a7d8a325ef705272da926 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support the body of the document but don't support the adoption only = if it is an update document of rfc6553 and rfc6554. Having many info docume= nts for one protocol is confusing. Specially when this document is tilted a= s use cases or applicability considerations for one protocol.

I think any ietf protocol already needs to have its applicabilities i= n one place that can be updated in future. Furthermore I suggest the title = to be change ( without using RFC numbers but using words).

AB
University of Tripoli

On Friday, December 18, 2015, = Ines Robles <mariaine= srobles@googlemail.com> wrote:

=C2=A0Dear all,

This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for the follo= wing draft:


When to use RFC 6= 553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 -=C2=A0

= https://datatracker.ie= tf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/


Plea= se send your opinion (=E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D) to the= mailing list on=C2=A0adopting=C2=A0this document as a ROLL=C2= =A0WG=C2=A0document.

=C2=A0

This=C2=A0call=C2=A0will end at 00:00 UTC on Janua= ry 10, 2016.


Regards,

Michael and Ines.

--001a113a7d8a325ef705272da926-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 09:05:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BC51B3725 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:05:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sDPSEloTWJIG for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:05:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B090F1B3712 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:05:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB03C2009E; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:11:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABEA8636CA; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:05:40 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Abdussalam Baryun In-Reply-To: References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <23010.1450031144@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:05:43 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair has to ask the > working group to say what they want to be in scope. What is done so far is > that our group chair is asking for new charter but still has the old scope of > one protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has the power to change > the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussion. I am quite certain: a) that the IESG will not approve a WG charter that includes more than one routing protocol. b) that I don't want to be chair of a group that works on multiple protocols in the same WG. c) that should the IESG do such a thing, that I will have significant feedback for nomcom. Meanwhile, I will repeat: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-pU8 ++ the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new ++ routing protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem is. So, if you have a draft that explains why another protocol is necessary, please point us to it. It would certainly help figure out where the problem should be discussed; it could turn out that it's a trivial extension to the existing specification. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVnQ85ICLcPvd0N1lAQJ1Lgf+PHTmvYTurWzEIHRGgAqkKawVIbEfQQGx WO8QvFOGrcSGPDtmbn7aJiL44aYcjRkCRwDiqGbskskYrHmWx5vobqJXl156Sl99 kN/KY395BOKHXskN5e/X4iAWuydFQd+EoXaGtb5jlewU3VRPfN+vQEXgLCjUk2pI F+YL1BITdOATvKc0KEBlpirMXmxLvxOBqKlaXUnZ/fw4xK/AUz99ApAdHBgtPVb4 pitwTkMc9yl/cHV4ExawE68trsjmSI0CDJouQnXdNBRn5d64rZIelUOaSPf+Kjf7 E/b5UBNMSQFt5rU7+Mtzi/D/dwLI+7JkHOyfEc+YlyfLhfRy6NExVg== =l52Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 09:55:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D97F1B37AA for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:55:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BXnaT9_Vq1vS for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 556F81B37AC for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-x233.google.com with SMTP id yq9so48436917lbb.3 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:55:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=glSex0bpVs5ILf+gxkXIMjozBt4DXWAS7Jcr3HTa6N4=; b=FJckvzAFPpPVBQ71gfXkFn/9P1XyBwBFHz+/UdSMGP9+rgddTHurDeoTDIOjH/hIeO umxIlf72TlmkkkE1E9Cu22RcmP1jgZ0MLD55RGaCabwuIkCDUCrxTyPk7bdb2TwtJWS1 Jt2em4VbJXO+syWhPlhuNiB73iHp4a6gJSc8MU4g/gluljTnIiB8SnCaY4zaTAkOJ1J7 5fgpJTKUh5xn6QdeY4TnWLxPkFcJyGNNsaFN+0sEMFnrav4X5zIGxZrzBm/2TxyTdNlJ WaXWSQy0IjsbmG/hdntgTv46UXNpqFGzQujK2f+IiyQ6Kj4B2kooVAZH89V1CO4I7Qq/ W8fA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.137.66 with SMTP id qg2mr1924711lbb.41.1450461327457; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:55:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: robert.cragie@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.156.75 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:55:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5563.1450458340@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <23010.1450031144@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com> <5563.1450458340@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:55:27 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3MdAJ5w1nSi2ugkI84yiJ5tC5vk Message-ID: From: Robert Cragie To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0115fb102f09aa05272fd88f Archived-At: Cc: Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:55:31 -0000 --089e0115fb102f09aa05272fd88f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +1. I cannot under any circumstance envisage the need for ROLL to work on a new routing protocol. Extensions to RPL, for sure. But not a new routing protocol. Robert On 18 December 2015 at 17:05, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > > I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair has to ask > the > > working group to say what they want to be in scope. What is done so > far is > > that our group chair is asking for new charter but still has the old > scope of > > one protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has the power to > change > > the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussion. > > I am quite certain: > a) that the IESG will not approve a WG charter that includes more than > one > routing protocol. > b) that I don't want to be chair of a group that works on multiple > protocols in the same WG. > c) that should the IESG do such a thing, that I will have significant > feedback for nomcom. > > Meanwhile, I will repeat: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-pU8 > > ++ the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new > ++ routing protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem is. > > So, if you have a draft that explains why another protocol is necessary, > please point us to it. It would certainly help figure out where the > problem > should be discussed; it could turn out that it's a trivial extension to the > existing specification. > > > -- > 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 > > --089e0115fb102f09aa05272fd88f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1. I cannot under any circumstance envisage the need for = ROLL to work on a new routing protocol. Extensions to RPL, for sure. But no= t a new routing protocol.

Robert

On 18 December 2015 at 17:05, Michael Ri= chardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussa= lambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair = has to ask the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > working group to say what they want to be in scope. What= is done so far is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > that our group chair is asking for new charter but still= has the old scope of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > one protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has = the power to change
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussio= n.

I am quite certain:
=C2=A0 a) that the IESG will not approve a WG charter that includes more th= an one
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0routing protocol.
=C2=A0 b) that I don't want to be chair of a group that works on multip= le
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0protocols in the same WG.
=C2=A0 c) that should the IESG do such a thing, that I will have significan= t
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0feedback for nomcom.

Meanwhile, I will repeat:
=C2=A0 https://mailarchive.iet= f.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-pU8

++ the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new
++ routing protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the proble= m is.

So, if you have a draft that explains why another protocol is necessary, please point us to it.=C2=A0 It would certainly help figure out where the p= roblem
should be discussed; it could turn out that it's a trivial extension to= the
existing specification.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@= sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://datatracker.i= etf.org/wg/roll/charter/


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


--089e0115fb102f09aa05272fd88f-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 10:28:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E1A1B37E6 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:28:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4kp4bqX75Y3D for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:28:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7068A1B37DF for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:28:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2241; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1450463313; x=1451672913; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=oQJp3kFyQbJcb4hvw//PyM4dU8j/VF3mBsi8j29Ve8s=; b=I69YMXxadzaFdVT8gJ1G7CaDGLfsjSrS+tMaqvMQT8yQM2ftfCCt64z/ d8zbLlUSxPY1FWLvgQWM08llJrcf/cGWu1muFI7vrm+J6pEgOWCzeMUG+ SjjEi1MA8m/+YUTINGBk39e4u1oNDEpgPtz+WM+krsqYXw0jxCEVao6NI A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AVAgACUHRW/4YNJK1egzpSbQa9UAENg?= =?us-ascii?q?WMhgjyDMAKBOzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEEeQwGAQgRBAEBAScoERQJCgQBDQU?= =?us-ascii?q?IE4d/AxIOuSoNhBUBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYhlaEfoJTgWuFAgWNc?= =?us-ascii?q?YkOAYU6hheBcYFjSYN8jy2HWgEgAQFChARyhBGBCAEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,447,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="219613623" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Dec 2015 18:28:32 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBIISWFK006877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:28:32 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:28:31 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:28:31 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "Abdussalam Baryun" Thread-Topic: [Roll] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHRObZZ8EeDKDI1tUy95tF4OKaC6J7RDzbAgAAAZbA= Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:28:30 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:28:17 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.61.161.120] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:28:35 -0000 Same as Michael I'll note that we still have that RPL P2P is still experimental work, and i= t would deserve a standard track version at some point. Is there energy (and charter) in the WG to work on that? Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: vendredi 18 d=E9cembre 2015 18:06 > To: Abdussalam Baryun > Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks ; Ines Roble= s > > Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter >=20 >=20 > Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > =A0=A0=A0=A0> I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair has= to ask the > =A0=A0=A0=A0> working group to say what they want to be in scope. What is= done so far is > =A0=A0=A0=A0> that our group chair is asking for new charter but still ha= s the old scope of > =A0=A0=A0=A0> one protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has the= power to > change > =A0=A0=A0=A0> the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussion. >=20 > I am quite certain: > =A0=A0a) that the IESG will not approve a WG charter that includes more t= han one > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0routing protocol. > =A0=A0b) that I don't want to be chair of a group that works on multiple > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0protocols in the same WG. > =A0=A0c) that should the IESG do such a thing, that I will have significa= nt > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0feedback for nomcom. >=20 > Meanwhile, I will repeat: > =A0=A0https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-= pU8 >=20 > ++ the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new routing > ++ protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem is. >=20 > So, if you have a draft that explains why another protocol is necessary, = please > point us to it.=A0 It would certainly help figure out where the problem s= hould be > discussed; it could turn out that it's a trivial extension to the existin= g > specification. >=20 >=20 > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair.=A0=A0=A0 http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/chart= er/ From nobody Fri Dec 18 10:49:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED431B3822 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:49:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZU7GiFF_qjnq for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:49:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D73921B3821 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:49:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l126so76052587wml.0 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:49:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail-udp-cl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=qnpOq5GOESvVmZqEtwArWpoJh8xEp8n+sCHy8vrGMNE=; b=HsPcA0uypED1EfuF166OHWrBiARFC8uW7QYg/xQRM2R2k58IWoPkWNHcC3XbuNwinJ XzZoz2kbJ9OHBSzfHVUZEbmZrNnSy0Po06yYPkaZdPELEZeI4YlaWb3Se7XWnIrL3Zjy J3/sF87b/ypv9qrx6o/xT7k5RO6gUxr1RzpXXn+rPIj1euvtZ1ieB5TZbic/va52gLXf uTHJ8HIaWp/cuvnWtWj8+zDtSp6UmHvilhVrmk6InGfRyflOHXRP/lYOoCX0pGxAijD2 xChZx8GemBBo3Z9M3TAvN1Kx1jLqCQThvic9vzTuvsE3m8i1FKfDVSozuUeqxf6ymV2L q60A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qnpOq5GOESvVmZqEtwArWpoJh8xEp8n+sCHy8vrGMNE=; b=MRL+LyHM6fONtFVySKF0tA1BNAdbVG2c2SIbq86lDbQuHycLtZT4sQvN711KM2KAlg ghvNnH9M9YJNpaDA86djMMZ9arutekkPxtg5UIXnzyD/nagWSSKDi44cfTquHASWvebg psQMbl6t5ahXvm787t1Gb+OYNqH19yZNHoyHojna+pIK0jlLC+DW2iUrVnFB8necjKex Y0CuIbw9qsJPQA7lRLYR6DQU++BTQmginzukG9czqZPdp5nx6wenYeDqqxSDdmqc4EuN kyDIWLqtbFKjHrpaStvrxBrNUQ5C6wPqokzXSASPEpb7htnBJMM9EPdZu3XklfJCQC0H xLyA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlz49pTrMCoVXlNMxsdVP2wPw1/2ncPyKGQjwAai/99LsGH3hCayA39h/b8Ul3x9P4iWbSdcqREaSovFBNmNlc95kUCuQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.89.170 with SMTP id bp10mr5720376wjb.7.1450464566295; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:49:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.154.138 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:49:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:49:25 -0300 Message-ID: From: "Prof. Diego Dujovne" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf10a643bd661052730993d Archived-At: Cc: Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:49:36 -0000 --047d7bf10a643bd661052730993d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pascal, As far as I can understand, the basis of that work should be RFC6997. Which would be the main missing elements to go for a standard track? Regards, Diego 2015-12-18 15:28 GMT-03:00 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) : > Same as Michael > > I'll note that we still have that RPL P2P is still experimental work, and > it would deserve a standard track version at some point. > Is there energy (and charter) in the WG to work on that? > > Cheers, > > Pascal > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael > Richardson > > Sent: vendredi 18 d=C3=A9cembre 2015 18:06 > > To: Abdussalam Baryun > > Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks ; Ines > Robles > > > > Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter > > > > > > Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > > > I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair has to as= k > the > > > working group to say what they want to be in scope. What is done > so far is > > > that our group chair is asking for new charter but still has the > old scope of > > > one protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has the power > to > > change > > > the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussion. > > > > I am quite certain: > > a) that the IESG will not approve a WG charter that includes more tha= n > one > > routing protocol. > > b) that I don't want to be chair of a group that works on multiple > > protocols in the same WG. > > c) that should the IESG do such a thing, that I will have significant > > feedback for nomcom. > > > > Meanwhile, I will repeat: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-pU= 8 > > > > ++ the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new routing > > ++ protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem is. > > > > So, if you have a draft that explains why another protocol is necessary= , > please > > point us to it. It would certainly help figure out where the problem > should be > > discussed; it could turn out that it's a trivial extension to the > existing > > specification. > > > > > > -- > > 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 > --=20 DIEGO DUJOVNE Acad=C3=A9mico Escuela de Ingenier=C3=ADa en Inform=C3=A1tica y Telecomunic= aciones Facultad de Ingenier=C3=ADa UDP www.ingenieria.udp.cl (56 2) 676 8125 --047d7bf10a643bd661052730993d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Pascal,
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 As far as I can underst= and, the basis of that work
should be RFC6997. Which would be the = main missing elements
to go for a standard track?
=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Regards,
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Diego

2015-12-18 15:28 GMT-0= 3:00 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>:
Same as Michael

I'll note that we still have that RPL P2P is still experimental work, a= nd it would deserve a standard track version at some point.
Is there energy (and charter) in the WG to work on that?

Cheers,

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounc= es@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: vendredi 18 d=C3=A9cembre 2015 18:06
> To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>; Ines Robles
> <mariainesrobles@= googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter
>
>
> Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> I agree with you. I think The problem is = that the chair has to ask the
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> working group to say what they want to be= in scope. What is done so far is
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> that our group chair is asking for new ch= arter but still has the old scope of
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> one protocol for the group. I only know t= hat the WG has the power to
> change
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> the scope if necessary when they prove th= at by discussion.
>
> I am quite certain:
> =C2=A0=C2=A0a) that the IESG will not approve a WG charter that includ= es more than one
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0routing protocol.
> =C2=A0=C2=A0b) that I don't want to be chair of a group that works= on multiple
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0protocols in the same WG.
> =C2=A0=C2=A0c) that should the IESG do such a thing, that I will have = significant
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0feedback for nomcom.
>
> Meanwhile, I will repeat:
> =C2=A0=C2=A0https://maila= rchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-pU8
>
> ++ the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a ne= w routing
> ++ protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem i= s.
>
> So, if you have a draft that explains why another protocol is necessar= y, please
> point us to it.=C2=A0 It would certainly help figure out where the pro= blem should be
> discussed; it could turn out that it's a trivial extension to the = existing
> specification.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+= IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 http://dat= atracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll



--
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Acad=C3=A9mico Escuela de Ingenier=C3= =ADa en Inform=C3=A1tica y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingenier=C3=AD= a UDP
www.ing= enieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125
--047d7bf10a643bd661052730993d-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 12:25:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321371B38AE for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:25:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_81=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xLMCVYPxfkfg for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:25:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD6A01B38AB for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:25:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10012; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1450470334; x=1451679934; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=oW6iVQ3WxBT4nRnzPnsl1QjFEG3hPMjJW26w5oMk0GM=; b=mnRTaMsbpi7HT/1joYrkvzs018YMtCtHQz4AoM7UmUjWgj4PYi5GqVyJ /7WkpWKAuVMSOykctJ47O9+GBXXjKswdad8N5o19Eo934FuOKgVYMNbxy sUu6hQ5xV6PfEDMwYVmpzpqibVjgyYgPC0Vf0xNjQQp0UOymFOjr1GLUb k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AaAgDwanRW/5pdJa1egzpSba4Cj1gBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFjFwEJgjyBWYFXAoE9OBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENAEBAQMBAQEBRiULDAQCAQgRBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAScHIQYLFAkIAgQOBRuHfwMKCA65Ig2EFQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?RiGVoIPgm+CU4FoAQEBHiwDDoMNgRoFln8BhTpphS6BeIFcSYN8jy2HWgEgAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?ChARyg1eBQgEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.20,447,1444694400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="60571646" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Dec 2015 20:25:32 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBIKPWW8024619 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:25:32 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:25:32 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:25:32 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] New proposed charter Thread-Index: AQHRObZZ8EeDKDI1tUy95tF4OKaC6J7RDzbAgAAAZbCAAGsvgP//tkWO Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:25:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DF109FA950AE414488AF6FB094F60EDBciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:25:37 -0000 --_000_DF109FA950AE414488AF6FB094F60EDBciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In my view that would be return from experience and for the lack of it bett= er alignment to AODVv2 operations which are better proven in the real world= . Makes sense? Pascal Le 18 d?c. 2015 ? 19:49, Prof. Diego Dujovne > a ?crit : Pascal, As far as I can understand, the basis of that work should be RFC6997. Which would be the main missing elements to go for a standard track? Regards, Diego 2015-12-18 15:28 GMT-03:00 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >: Same as Michael I'll note that we still have that RPL P2P is still experimental work, and i= t would deserve a standard track version at some point. Is there energy (and charter) in the WG to work on that? Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] O= n Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: vendredi 18 d?cembre 2015 18:06 > To: Abdussalam Baryun > > Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks >; Ines Robles > > > Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter > > > Abdussalam Baryun > wrote: > > I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair has to ask = the > > working group to say what they want to be in scope. What is done so= far is > > that our group chair is asking for new charter but still has the ol= d scope of > > one protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has the power t= o > change > > the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussion. > > I am quite certain: > a) that the IESG will not approve a WG charter that includes more than = one > routing protocol. > b) that I don't want to be chair of a group that works on multiple > protocols in the same WG. > c) that should the IESG do such a thing, that I will have significant > feedback for nomcom. > > Meanwhile, I will repeat: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-pU8 > > ++ the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new routing > ++ protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem is. > > So, if you have a draft that explains why another protocol is necessary, = please > point us to it. It would certainly help figure out where the problem sho= uld be > discussed; it could turn out that it's a trivial extension to the existin= g > specification. > > > -- > 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 -- DIEGO DUJOVNE Acad?mico Escuela de Ingenier?a en Inform?tica y Telecomunicaciones Facultad de Ingenier?a UDP www.ingenieria.udp.cl (56 2) 676 8125 _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll --_000_DF109FA950AE414488AF6FB094F60EDBciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In my view that would be return from experience and for the lack of it= better alignment to AODVv2 operations which are better proven in the real = world.

Makes sense?

Pascal

Le 18 déc. 2015 à 19:49, Prof. Diego Dujovne <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl> a &eacut= e;crit :

Pascal,
            As far a= s I can understand, the basis of that work
should be RFC6997. Which would be the main missing elements
to go for a standard track?
            Regards,=

            &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;        Diego

2015-12-18 15:28 GMT-03:00 Pascal Thubert (pthub= ert) <pthubert@cisco.= com>:
Same as Michael

I'll note that we still have that RPL P2P is still experimental work, and i= t would deserve a standard track version at some point.
Is there energy (and charter) in the WG to work on that?

Cheers,

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounc= es@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: vendredi 18 décembre 2015 18:06
> To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>; Ines Robles
> <mariainesrobles@= googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter
>
>
> Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > I agree with you. I think The problem is = that the chair has to ask the
>     > working group to say what they want to be= in scope. What is done so far is
>     > that our group chair is asking for new ch= arter but still has the old scope of
>     > one protocol for the group. I only know t= hat the WG has the power to
> change
>     > the scope if necessary when they prove th= at by discussion.
>
> I am quite certain:
>   a) that the IESG will not approve a WG charter that includ= es more than one
>      routing protocol.
>   b) that I don't want to be chair of a group that works on = multiple
>      protocols in the same WG.
>   c) that should the IESG do such a thing, that I will have = significant
>      feedback for nomcom.
>
> Meanwhile, I will repeat:
>   https://maila= rchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-pU8
>
> ++ the first step would not be to assume a solution (&q= uot;a new routing
> ++ protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the p= roblem is.
>
> So, if you have a draft that explains why another protocol is necessar= y, please
> point us to it.  It would certainly help figure out where the pro= blem should be
> discussed; it could turn out that it's a trivial extension to the exis= ting
> specification.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr&= #43;IETF@sandelman.ca>, 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



--
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telec= omunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
www.ingenieria.u= dp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ie= tf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
--_000_DF109FA950AE414488AF6FB094F60EDBciscocom_-- From nobody Sun Dec 20 23:53:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07261A8AB7 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 23:53:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.702 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OqIsIHHLKKPP for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 23:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net (lb2-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net [194.109.24.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4891E1A8AB6 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 23:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.215]) by smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net with ESMTP id w7t81r0074eRkWy017t8PY; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:53:09 +0100 Received: from 2001:983:a264:1:c0f2:c835:52c1:6bea by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:53:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:53:08 +0100 From: peter van der Stok To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <312b987288efb7f816623330b5ef192e@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (GU1LZv2yaGY8Jt39+rC08XbFYeykjm9J) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson , Ines Robles Subject: Re: [Roll] WG adoption call - When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 07:53:14 -0000 YES, Peter Ines Robles schreef op 2015-12-18 11:23: > Dear all, > > This starts a ROLL Working group adoption call for the following > draft: > > When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 - > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo/ > > Please send your opinion (“Yes” or “No”) to the mailing list > on adopting this document as a ROLL WG document. > > This call will end at 00:00 UTC on January 10, 2016. > > Regards, > > Michael and Ines. > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From nobody Wed Dec 30 13:30:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C57A1AD291 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:30:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.012 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PFmhvdrxz670 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:30:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D2051AD28D for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:30:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17582009E for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:37:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1584637A0 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:30:34 -0500 (EST) To: roll@ietf.org References: From: Michael Richardson X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N0210 Message-ID: <56844CFA.4050300@sandelman.ca> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:30:34 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: [Roll] adding P2P standards track to charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:30:38 -0000 On 12/18/15 13:28, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Same as Michael > > I'll note that we still have that RPL P2P is still experimental work, and it would deserve a standard track version at some point. > Is there energy (and charter) in the WG to work on that? To date, to my knowledge, we have no implementation reports on *RPL* or *RPL P2P* which mention interoperability. I think that as the ETSI 6tisch minimal efforts/plugfests will provide sufficient evidence on RPL to advance it along the standards track itself. As for *RPL P2P* --- it's a good question. The decision to put P2P on experimental track predates the current chairs (and also the ADs), and I'd have to go do some research to establish why it went that way in the first place, and see if those concerns still exist. While we do not need interoperation to get to PS, it would probably help to alleviate whatever concerns drove it towards Experimental in the first place. I'd prefer to leave P2P alone in the short term; I think we will be overloaded otherwise. From nobody Wed Dec 30 13:48:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585D51AD36F for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:48:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1DEnHyh0vXsJ for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:48:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 219951A8994 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:48:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9C52009E for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:55:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5A9637A0 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:48:42 -0500 (EST) To: roll@ietf.org References: <56844CFA.4050300@sandelman.ca> From: Michael Richardson X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <5684513A.2010608@sandelman.ca> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:48:42 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56844CFA.4050300@sandelman.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] adding P2P standards track to charter X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:48:45 -0000 On 12/30/15 16:30, Michael Richardson wrote: > As for *RPL P2P* --- it's a good question. The decision to put P2P on > experimental track predates the current chairs (and also the ADs), and > I'd have to go do some research to establish why it went that way in the > first place, and see if those concerns still exist. I meant to add: I see nothing in BCP9 that would make the existence of RFC6997 any easier for production of a P2P Proposed Standard. I will ask around to understand if I've missed something about moving Experimental to standards track. [the re-read of of BCP9 makes it even more clear that our Applicability Statements *do* belong on standards track, and not informational. For those wondering what happened to our documents, see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C245 ]