Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt

Richard Kelsey <> Fri, 15 June 2012 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB4D21F867B; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vSrlFGE4GzxL; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B88A21F864E; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [] (EHLO by with ESMTP id (envelope-from <>); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:44:17 -0600 (MDT)
X-MXL-Hash: 4fdb747102445f15-e59dbdcc1581da98a51caaa2df48e1b18d25f826
Received: from unknown [] (EHLO by over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id (envelope-from <>); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:43:05 -0600 (MDT)
X-MXL-Hash: 4fdb7429441ceccb-1840f6b5b4ab7b70f9090aa284514fb949903a7f
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:42:57 -0400
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:38:10 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Thomas Heide Clausen <>
In-Reply-To: <> (message from Thomas Heide Clausen on Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:59:18 +0200)
From: Richard Kelsey <>
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, OOF, AutoReply
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Originating-IP: []
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=C9BeP3z+ c=1 sm=0 a=MYqPJgym4Kx47q1P90kooQ==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=u0NvnAFnSA0A:10 a=OFb--ukilxYA:10 a=saA6nF2ZJaAA:10 a=BLc]
X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=OQ_ktunLAAAA:8 a=pJo66KLIAAAA:8 a=HZJGGiqLA]
X-AnalysisOut: [AAA:8 a=lt3peZ0jL1c_Qe6UbLgA:9 a=Qmq8LIWCQqsA:10 a=HeoGohO]
X-AnalysisOut: [dMD0A:10]
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:44:20 -0000

Hi Thomas,

As Don said, the intent is that MLE not be tied to RPL and that
it be submitted as an AD-sponsored submission.  I have spoken
with Ralph about it on several occasions.  We both would have
preferred that MLE go through a WG, but there doesn't seem to be
an appropriate one.  If MLE were intended for use exclusively
with ROLL (or MANET or 6LoWPAN), this wouldn't be an issue.

Ralph and I discussed it again yesterday, and decided to go with
an AD-sponsored submission.  My plan was to add some clarifications
to the draft before announcing it to the usual suspects (6lowpan,
MANET, ROLL).  This thread jumped the gun by a day or two.

                                  -Richard Kelsey

> From: Thomas Heide Clausen <>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:59:18 +0200
> Hi Don,
> On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek <> wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard:
> > That is from memory, am I correct?)
> > 
> If that's the case, then I think that it needs to be scoped
> carefully: the design and direction of the work required would
> (IMO) be very different if it aims narrowly for RPL, or broadly
> for "MESH", and the text in the specification should be very
> very clear as to this.
> If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do honestly
> not know what the proper way of shaping the process / forum for
> discussions / framing of the specification would be, but I
> would hope that an AD could chirp in (as you say INT, have you
> discussed this with Brian or Ralph, and could you or either of
> them let us know?)
> Note, I am not taking position for or against MLE at all - I
> just want to ensure that a specification published be scoped so
> as to not be constraining for domains for which it hasn't been
> discussed.
> Thomas