[icnrg] next stepd for draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements

Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu> Mon, 08 August 2016 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D50512D60E for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.868
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lHduTkdeJR7K for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 592C212B044 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC07100E97 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:32:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gFnQCs0WZDL1 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:32:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted
X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted
Received: from METHONE.office.hd (methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 343C2100E91 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:32:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.15]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:32:33 +0200
From: Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>
To: "icnrg@irtf.org" <icnrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: next stepd for draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements
Thread-Index: AdHxigdPCtUrq7PhS02PHuDuI00eWw==
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:32:33 +0000
Message-ID: <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249AF42A16C@PALLENE.office.hd>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.2.102]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249AF42A16CPALLENEofficehd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/5cF5ZiLRIFUcv5bIEHeTm3WFFIM>
Subject: [icnrg] next stepd for draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:32:41 -0000

Hi all,

at the Berlin meeting, we concluded that we'd use the mailing list to agree on next steps for draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements [1].

In case you don't remember, this draft is the result of a merger of draft-zhang-iot-icn-challenges-02 [2] and draft-lindgren-icnrg-efficientiot-03 [3], focusing on the scenario, requirements and challenges aspects of both input drafts.

After the merger, the authors have submitted another version, reflecting some community feedback.

Please see https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-icnrg-3.pdf for a summary of the genesis and the current content.

The chairs would like to get an understanding whether the ICNRG has an interest in pursuing this draft as a RG activity ("adoption"). We normally do this for drafts where there is a critical mass of interested people that would like to see this progressing within ICNRG and eventually be published as an (in this case, Informational)  RFC. This would also require a critical mass of people that would be interested to spend cycles for reviewing the draft and future revisions.

Could you please let us know whether you think this draft a) should be adopted as a RG item and b) whether you'd be able to help reviewing it?

Thanks,
Börje, Dave, Dirk (ICNRG chairs)

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements/
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-iot-icn-challenges-02
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lindgren-icnrg-efficientiot/03/