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

Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu> Fri, 16 September 2016 16:00 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 56A8612B2AC for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.129
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.129 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=-1.508, 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 1heNM4Rwb8i9 for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:00:12 -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 525AB12B2B8 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E951013DC for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:00:10 +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 ey1aYyo9dde8 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:00:10 +0200 (CEST)
X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted
X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49B561013D8 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:00:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.186]) by ENCELADUS.office.hd ([192.168.24.52]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:00:08 +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: AdHxigdPCtUrq7PhS02PHuDuI00eWweqNiEA
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:00:07 +0000
Message-ID: <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249AF4A4A27@PALLENE.office.hd>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.7.0.204]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249AF4A4A27PALLENEofficehd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/Zte_iHsa2F6R0I_AKZ8F-DdOImE>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:00:15 -0000

Hi all,

This may have fallen between the cracks during the summer break - so this is a friendly reminder:

Please let us have your opinion on how to pursue with this draft. Do you support adopting it as an RG document?

Thanks,
Chairs


From: Dirk Kutscher
Sent: Montag, 8. August 2016 17:33
To: icnrg@irtf.org
Subject: next stepd for draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements

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/