IETF Logo Mail Archive

[6tsch] should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 18 August 2013 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8DE11E8197; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.834
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.765, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.219, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5AZOBOHgzCEw; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBBAA11E817D; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.252.140]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DE3022080; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:14:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F258CA0D7; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>, roll@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <CADJ9OA9voPHr2HrgCLEMJaiVeUxnuxkgAQTur5rFJKH=X9Z34g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJ9OA9voPHr2HrgCLEMJaiVeUxnuxkgAQTur5rFJKH=X9Z34g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> message dated "Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:12:45 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:30:19 -0400
Message-ID: <6445.1376771419@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: "Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk)" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "Ted Lemon (ted.lemon@nominum.com)" <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: [6tsch] should 6tsch adopt draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability?
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:14:22 -0000

This email is directed at IESG types, as this requires an IESG action.

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> writes:
    Thomas> After discussion and suggestions from numerous 6TSCH and
    Thomas> other people here at the IETF, the chairs have created a
    Thomas> new, simplified version of the draft, which we have uploaded
    Thomas> in the repo at:
    Thomas> https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/src/master/charter-ietf-6tsch-00.txt

Foolishly, I didn't copy this to my laptop before leaving for the
cottage, where I am now catching up on some mailing lists using DTN
protocols, as no network, so I haven't read the above. 

In the last version that I read the question of what, if anything, to do
with draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability was unresolved.

To recap, the options are:

1) nothing. Leave it in ROLL. It may progress as is, or it may reference sixtus
   work non-norminatively.
   A second document (-bis) might reference sixtus normatively in the future.

2) leave it in ROLL, have it reference sixtus work normatively, and
   have this document stalled until sixtus progresses.

3) move this document to sixtus, where I think it will get significantly
   more review and energy.

There are perhaps other options, which I would like to add to a list,
and then make a WG consensus call (in ROLL) about what feedback ROLL
would like the IESG to hear.

(You can perhaps see which one I prefer)

-- 
Michael Richardson
-at the cottage-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email