Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] slot for New Version of draft-qiu-roll-kemp-02.txt

Carsten Bormann <> Mon, 29 October 2012 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B1F21F86EA; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ENR-w95KubpX; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D7421F86CD; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q9THlOWB026270; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:47:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93CC4F6; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:47:24 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:47:24 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <015901cdb0d3$d38cf1f0$7aa6d5d0$> <> <> <02a101cdb5f5$51109a70$f331cf50$> <> <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "Turner, Sean P." <>,, " WG" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] slot for New Version of draft-qiu-roll-kemp-02.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: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:48:58 -0000

On Oct 29, 2012, at 18:31, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:

> Carsten, all,
> On 10/29/2012 04:56 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 2012, at 17:49, QIU Ying <> wrote:
>>> which WG is best
>> I think right now we don't know that.
>> All WGs in the CN/N cluster have the problem and have some unfulfilled charter item in this space.
>> So we can continue to play tourists and use the WG that happens to have the largest amount of space on the agenda...
>> In SOLACE, we are discussing right now when to meet during the Atlanta IETF.
> Would it be timely to spend 10 minutes on this during the saag
> session?

Splendid idea!
By Thursday, we should have a somewhat clearer idea of what we want to do.

> I'd really like that the security area not end up being surprised
> by whatever is eventually decided so getting a presentation at
> saag would be useful at the point where you more or less know
> the direction, but are still flexible enough to deal with someone
> who e.g. points out significant security issues.
> It might be that waiting another meeting cycle or two would be
> better if the basic ideas aren't yet firmed up.
> So, is this work far enough advanced already for that to be
> productive now or is it still so early it'd be counter-productive?
> (And presenting at saag before you're ready could very well
> be counter-productive - it can be a tough audience;-)

Oh, there will be no technical presentation at this point.
These 10 minutes would be about alerting the security community about this activity.
(See my ROLL slides from Vancouver --

What we want to do first is 
a) collecting more fleshed out approaches, documenting how precisely they work, and
b) identifying gaps in the existing standards, if any.

If we are successful in getting structure into this, then there might be
1) "system standards" that explain how to tie things together, as well as 
2) potentially point activities addressing these gaps (but these will not be "SOLACE").

Grüße, Carsten