Subject: [6lo] Adoption of draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment

From: Robert Cragie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:37:37 +0000

Dear 6lo WG,

I am writing as shepherd of the above draft to request that it be adopted
by the 6lo working group.

MLE is used in ZigBee IP and other 802.15.4-based mesh networks and it is
important that it can be progressed to be an RFC. It was originally going
to be an AD-sponsored draft due to the 6lowpan WG ending but due to changes
in ADs this is no longer possible.

I believe the document fits into the 6lo charter, notably the "lack of some
layer 2 services like complete device connectivity" part.

I would therefore be grateful if you could indicate on the mailing list
whether you support or oppose adoption of the draft. If you oppose
adoption, please state why you oppose adoption.

Thank you

Robert

PS Note it is currently expired but will be refreshed shortly.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:58:21 -0400

Robert Cragie <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > MLE is used in ZigBee IP and other 802.15.4-based mesh networks and it
    > is important that it can be progressed to be an RFC. It was originally
    > going to be an AD-sponsored draft due to the 6lowpan WG ending but due
    > to changes in ADs this is no longer possible.

Is Zigbee actually willing to let the 6lo WG own the protocol?
Could the WG actually change the protocol in any significant,
changes-on-the-wire way?

    > I believe the document fits into the 6lo charter, notably the "lack of
    > some layer 2 services like complete device connectivity" part.

    > I would therefore be grateful if you could indicate on the mailing
    > list whether you support or oppose adoption of the draft. If you
    > oppose adoption, please state why you oppose adoption.

I think that if it can't go AD-sponsored, and that I think I know the answers
to my questions, and given that I think that the UDP port has already been
allocated, it should just go via Independant Stream. 

I didn't know that MLE had not made it into the RFC-editor queue.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:07:21 -1000

Just a couple of observations...

> Could the WG actually change the protocol in any significant,

The last version of the draft (-06) contains no disclaimers about
restrictions on the spec.  It also carries the standard I-D Copyright
statement.

And if it helps, there do not appear to be any IPR disclosures filed
against the draft.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Robert Cragie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:42:00 +0000

There are no restrictions from the ZigBee Alliance as the assumption was
this would end up being an RFC.

Robert

On 24 March 2015 at 15:07, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>
>

---

From: Robert Cragie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:17:22 +0000

> Could the WG actually change the protocol in any significant,

<RCC>The WG could potentially extend MLE with additional documents but the
aim is to move the document to RFC status as is</RCC>

> I didn't know that MLE had not made it into the RFC-editor queue.

<RCC>Thanks for the pointer - let's talk offline</RCC>