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

Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> Fri, 15 June 2012 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <d.sturek@att.net>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C67E21F8597 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id psMlVo56vqnM for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm33.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm33.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.229.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4EAAD21F8568 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.138.90.54] by nm33.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 17:07:02 -0000
Received: from [98.138.226.56] by tm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 17:07:02 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp207.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 17:07:02 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339780022; bh=6PeKJUeKDzwrcFWPtnuBYXX2p1pS5hOr8D1chWCnP6c=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Date:Subject:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IFPR06OJdpmawQV2DdE+3IsXcuPLcNLhQb2zdhy1BeDCLQON2D0kqGJoJcA6la3dzAnzTSxVihkbZKMoSAnxxU10GSSp9PfPolRze2cfeQeS1hsf/0vzYPv+bBdYUSzPIYMVD1VFBVp9RjsVN6H6XBYZsPEBDwjC4sBXKYDhpHE=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 287445.86789.bm@smtp207.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: MQlAV9QVM1kx8PzkVLU8V8P3uFiJWlVTpqzTc1Si9kXU.I9 vy_VXUx3G6M8L8FgiEdh4Hs0UNDrLEFNsS3tm4WC5BDjORtRIjiUlBTjipEJ bgEe2kqoHDnl45qmpExo6DpkP1uZmpM8p0W9iHyF5CV5QdQ._38tMZYWpQoL HkuR84BMfFZHL6vQAvl9yjZdRL5XqA9y9fuwXN7hAU7hlru3hNz7v8itvhJw 8Nxvs34ADTBzjC_jfVhwyrQMZm_.2wScNOOmqY0yA_E7C5BN7lnOaaieOB6v TxkmVL6PtJ9ZWqdVW2U47Dj__XpJGPA7pgvucGYStv9qve4.MHxfG3RndtD5 SfV2K73ppot936DoPs0FcKBNtmA5vFGIRwMcFXaL0NW8PPOaJ_RT_jfnL.uW Uoc2h327l9LSCwBeavrmxlVpl6.Zr4bvKXpVRKmGBF5a23MknIh3RYs0_xA3 R0KmF56smveY5JgifKzOBJ0wUdqJapk21lC5n5TJioxOHF1NZjsjXa0A4iRw -
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
Received: from 100.165.83.40 (d.sturek@208.54.80.212 with plain) by smtp207.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 10:07:01 -0700 PDT
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:06:49 -0500
Message-ID: <c2hc7akoxs1qqbvd2hb3chst.1339780009728@email.android.com>
From: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
To: Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "<roll@ietf.org>" <roll@ietf.org>, "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "<ipv6@ietf.org>" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt
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 17:07:06 -0000

Hi Thomas,

Fair enough.  I do know we avoided making the draft RPL specific so look forward to hearing from the intarea ADs on where we should direct the draft.

Don

Sent from T-Mobile G2 with Google

Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> wrote:

>Hi Don,
>
>
>On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> 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
>
>
>> Don
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/15/12 9:28 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" <ietf@thomasclausen.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15 Jun 2012, at 15:57, Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Thomas (and Michael),
>>>> 
>>>> I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL.  The draft was written
>>>> carefully
>>>> to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL.  That said, the deployment we
>>>> are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL
>>>> (non-storing)
>>>> and I think many others will find the information exchanged between
>>>> neighbors using MLE as useful.
>>>> 
>>>> Don
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Don,
>>> 
>>> Note that I was replying to Michael's suggestions that MLE be married to
>>> RPL.
>>> 
>>> If you think it's not, then MLE should neither be developed in ROLL nor
>>> be constrained by RPL code-points, messages or principles.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thomas
>>> 
>>>> On 6/15/12 6:15 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> writes:
>>>>>>  Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not
>>>>>>  Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if
>>>>>>  Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then
>>>>>>  Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be
>>>>>>  Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (&
>>>>>>  Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thomas, you will note that:
>>>>>> 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push
>>>>>>   back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a
>>>>>> type/code.
>>>>>> 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such
>>>>> that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context
>>>>> (special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and
>>>>> specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>>>>>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>