Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc

Carsten Bormann <> Thu, 14 June 2012 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB20021F86EC for <>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.763
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.763 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.514, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tl9DjC8O65sI for <>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86AE121F86EB for <>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5EFAX6Q024435; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:10:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7BE41F8; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:10:32 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:10:31 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:10:52 -0000

On Jun 14, 2012, at 13:16, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> I also think the memebrs are only authorised to decide if cotinue or not,
> if there was no good reason announced ;)

Well, that's not how the IETF works.

The IETF sets up WGs to solve specific, well-defined problems.
When that work is done, the WG is closed.
That doesn't mean everything is going away -- often, e.g., the mailing list stays open.

6LoWPAN is close to achieving all the work it was tasked for (actually, looking at you can see all our milestones are already marked as done; however, there is some shepherding to be done while the last two documents are on their way to RFC).
So, indeed, it is close to being closed.

By the way, it is the prerogative of the IESG to set up and close down WGs.
WG chairs come into play only to run the WG.
(Of course, when it became clear that it is becoming time to shut down 6LoWPAN, we were asked about our opinion, but it wasn't our decision.)

Yes, it would be nice to know where continuing work on the INT area aspects of constrained node/networks is to be done.  We have a new INT AD that has expressed interest in solving that problem together with the existing responsible AD for 6LoWPAN.  But there is no rush -- 6LoWPAN is around and alive, and the work on the interesting documents can continue on the 6LoWPAN mailing list (with a subscriber count currently north of 700).  I would expect we know the way forward by the end of Vancouver IETF.

So now let's return from the process discussion to the technical work of reviewing the draft, finding things that can be left out from the design to further simplify it, and gaining simulation (from packet captures) and implementation experience.

Grüße, Carsten