Re: [6lowpan] Call for working group adoption (Re: making progress on fragmentation)

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 18 August 2009 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197A728C1A5 for <6lowpan@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WmYGLB4q42aJ for <6lowpan@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2219428C1A4 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEANNLikpAZnmf/2dsb2JhbADAAIgtkDwFhBk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,402,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="54476081"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2009 13:37:14 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n7IDbEj3008063; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:37:14 -0400
Received: from bxb-rdroms-8714.cisco.com (bxb-rdroms-8714.cisco.com [10.98.10.85]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IDb9WU003091; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:37:14 GMT
Message-Id: <0C6EA69F-2455-4A8F-96BB-596576A790FB@cisco.com>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <4186F14A-435F-4C74-9D31-31BF03A6C1A2@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:37:03 -0400
References: <87ljlh2tpx.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com> <4186F14A-435F-4C74-9D31-31BF03A6C1A2@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2219; t=1250602634; x=1251466634; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rdroms@cisco.com; z=From:=20Ralph=20Droms=20<rdroms@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[6lowpan]=20Call=20for=20working=20grou p=20adoption=20(Re=3A=20making=20progress=20on=20fragmentati on) |Sender:=20 |To:=20Carsten=20Bormann=20<cabo@tzi.org>; bh=R1UN45dBB7eUJlOs85Jh+/Kk00Amyh8dveVs2EolaD4=; b=KWPeHUJLNZ01R0K/Bk1ijWZF1htIS7jc5EFO08bD0aU8V9w4luWf2K/KGy dPPaDSKeANYPbIqgWV5MPCCxpj20A9nqdknFHy4YL+v7hxkenDJ7Ic4KzKKY cHdW192Ak5;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=rdroms@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Call for working group adoption (Re: making progress on fragmentation)
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:37:39 -0000

I've had a couple of off-line discussions; now seems like a good time  
to ask the WG: does anyone have empirical evidence about the impact of  
fragment loss in 802.15.4 networks that would motivate the need for  
reliable fragment delivery?

- Ralph

On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:26 AM 8/18/09, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> Richard,
>
> thank you for seconding Pascal's draft.
>
> We have had multiple discussions of the fragment recovery drafts in  
> IETF meetings.
> Each time, we found some aspect some of us didn't like, and then  
> Pascal submitted an updated version solving that problem.
> The only thing that got considerable push-back this time was that  
> the draft shouldn't try to deprecate 4944's fragment headers.
> I think this is a statement that could easily be taken out in a  
> working group draft submission.
> (Of course, any other technical wrinkles can be ironed out during  
> the period the document is a WG draft.)
>
> So I would like to take the opportunity to ask here on the mailing  
> list whether we should adopt
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-simple-fragment-recovery-06
> (with the abovementioned change) as a working group document.
>
> -->
>  If you want to advance this draft, please indicate your support on  
> the mailing list.
>  If you think this is a bad idea, please say so, too.
>  (I would like to receive responses by this Friday, Aug 21, as I'm  
> going on vacation after that.)
>
> Note that we also have to hear from our AD on this item, as it is  
> not formally on our charter.
> A year ago, Mark Townsley gave us some form of go ahead when we  
> discussed whether we should be delaying the charter for adding this  
> as a work item.
> He said that waiting wasn't necessary, and we were free to start work.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/6lowpan@ietf.org/msg01114.html
> Still, we would need to add a line item under the deliverables, and  
> our new AD would have to concur -- which is probably easiest after  
> the yays and nays.
>
> Gruesse, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan