[6lowpan] Does the 6lowpan WG want to close?

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 15 June 2012 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3536F21F854D for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sDsmvdNAOdPE for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2288221F853D for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so1840377vbb.31 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=b5ScJ7T7Nk8ilUc67NrFIAXs5N1V8+/ULRz7TW7IqE0=; b=kBnWGkTVM1Vc7LRc3lD8DQ/zEgwYVVp65lOsVriPNGOzJoBT8GsrniH+9IWjWMdZ0k tJGpwSgEAOHQhkKyPVJs4jFNKzK8iF9JBKla/02Orw2dZpZoL0GuIT+wqlxRzJuFcfnW STu/j5IbSVn7um4Z+dIQzObgMGQ3WTiZSyIW/61J2m/dQXwAH1btMibycxhpPp3vaCCS 9aAc6D3xOK1GpXoK2vXUkuZ6sYPeqIizWf/XBKmTXSkxzqNPSdlWcwZWdg73cfguNTVO df1uPwaxHE39jyuAKWXkH69SVdCbhJhgGcRMdgFZ7VrIUmo0VIfNZKGDAKre7QOrY0iy bjsA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id v19mr2356171vdf.127.1339757214408; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:46:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89+5yD8xtgH3=GQShF6cP9YCS0J2w_quKzs0BMxVvPgWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5015e7bd9a1a104c2808865
Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org>
Subject: [6lowpan] Does the 6lowpan WG want to close?
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:46:56 -0000

Hi Carsten,

I agree that it was good to complete the tasks and solve the specific
issues, and it may be a good reason for close, but I also think the working
group can decide if they want to bring more tasks in and continue (I don't
see a role in IETF to MUST close WG if completes the specific problems,
if I am wrong please refer me to a page reference?), and if they want to
solve other problems related to the group purpose. I think that the
community drives works/inputs in IETF WGs.

IMO, the IESG is only to decide to requests of open or close, after they
get an input with reason. I don't think they are prerogative to decide the
input and decide the output as well. IMO IESG are prerogative to decide the
outcome. The inputs are decided by the WG, and the WG may not decide the
outcome-result of such input. So I think if we want to request for
continue/close we see the community input for 6Lowpan WG, then if they
wanted to continue we input to IESG for their approval, if they want to
close then it will be without an input request.

There is a possibility that I don't know how the IETF works, but I read the
IETF procedures, and see that there is no good reason for close without the
WG consensus or input of this issue.


On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> 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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/charter/ 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