IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] GHC plan

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Wed, 26 March 2014 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56201A0333 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
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, 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 wTQiLieZEHjx for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x233.google.com (mail-ve0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2871A0107 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f179.google.com with SMTP id db12so2461840veb.24 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=55QmyRRC23bHx9cdg9nMpxhnHgPVwEZqCFV/aNJXX0g=; b=U9ATLoLQrSGs7lqs8KUQU0V766Z3pMH5E65fQ0ib37EGjOLE5pMD+iv/lwn1T4oGKZ ajiD245bB9uQPDjQld0GnnLWgf5l7qjHHaBV1qPlqAVPz9tuewobz/o1X2ZOc7Sfjtan oI1ezLnh4YTX6ezX9PQmIFLnv+Xk5/zWhr8Zs=
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=55QmyRRC23bHx9cdg9nMpxhnHgPVwEZqCFV/aNJXX0g=; b=BBWCyzmBlKzQgTEDn43NYAKruKJ0O2c7xwz826NhsbH0zLi3gkxpZ9RaeopkD1J6/b p9gQVm/j8cCsOA1P4s3QU7Hr4i77GB52tSUGO/bhceFKoGXm7olsgwuNbeHWfxE4rHqc C32vySzPPoV8iBaWNzouDxULy6EbdLT3GgMQTCvB2cal2C3PpN/AVxJVkir4z9sy5S08 pM9J+0GPDXSOgAOYddPUp0cEFc/fHrNUTVDCdtVGMM5M/SdeldvFChNm2wrnvJC4tmFX lRnJ7qnbhQU4TrgAemH+Nra3FODO9nW1HDIuA0SkebLCpoUJrFDIvblxlSawMLZafbWS MNnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQ0idPC70EUhGkadneJ+27L7A31TS9WAzF+5LbsnxqJWMJJ8dtVn0BBCSWeP2v1Ad+TP/k
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.191.134 with SMTP id dm6mr61566391vcb.16.1395846617205; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.221.21.129 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ89iJm3OiFbw2w81Z2fntrjFfpeQU1n055DKm=FRUJa87w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3C1CD7E2-6D38-4415-8298-16D027EA74F3@tzi.org> <CADnDZ89iJm3OiFbw2w81Z2fntrjFfpeQU1n055DKm=FRUJa87w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:10:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC9hJd26YzJr9vJY3xsApiJtBpBYb=AGMA7JJ7PmZyzJNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0158a82ac7a21604f583dd26"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/db3vN34o9tNX6nKHCHuOR0LtI3I
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] GHC plan
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:10:22 -0000

Abdussalam,

see below


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <
abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the plan is not the WG plan but the draft is WG draft.


I don't understand what you are saying here.


> IMHO,
> the GHC plan for having draft-01 with only editorial updates is not
> enough.


Fair enough. But without any concrete non-editorial change requests, this
sentence is not constructive. Just saying we need more discussions, without
concrete suggestions what to change is not helpful and will only delay the
process without getting anywhere closer to publication.


> The meeting plan included asking for more reviews. However, we
> still have time before next meeting for discussions and reviews.
>

I do encourage everyone on the mailing list to review this draft (as well
as all other WG drafts). Note that the GHC draft has been around for quite
a while and presented multiple times in the 6lowpan WG.

Best regards
Ulrich



>
> The draft is still in the adopt version -00 for this WG, which was
> adopted at ietf88, I see only two review on the list (not much
> discussions), I think the draft needs more proper updates before
> meetings to open discussions (before ietf89 meeting Thomas had
> discussed but draft did not update to new version for the meeting). I
> suggest more discussions per WG draft.
>
> Thanks,
>
> AB
>
> On Saturday, March 22, 2014, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >
> >
> > It has been pointed out to me that I should probably repeat to the
> mailing list what I said at ietf89 in London:  there have been lots of good
> editorial comments on the current GHC draft, and it is worth creating an
> update before we go ahead and ask for WGLC.  I had planned to do this
> before my vacation, but other things intervened, so this will have to wait
> another week or two.  Sorry for the radio silence, and thanks again for all
> the comments.
> >
> > Grüße, Carsten
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6lo mailing list
> > 6lo@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email