Re: [icnrg] CCNx Drafts - next steps

[MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I fail to understand how these drafts could be considered as RG work as 
opposed to an individual contribution.
To me, this  set of drafts is an individual contribution.

Several drafts have been presented on the packet format, and no real 
agreement has been reached to continue
working together on a common draft. In this sense these drafts are not a 
RG contribution, de facto.

 From a research point of view, I think that the disagreement we have 
all expressed has the merit to push
everyone to do more research on the different design choices the packet 
formats would imply.
Which is a good think, IMO.

I also fail to understand the implications of adopting these documents 
as group drafts, as no one else would work on it
except one contributor. I might be missing something here though.

Luca




On 04/06/2015 07:02 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Thank you - sorry for the mis-statement - I am new to IETF.  We took a 
> sense of the room and people "hummed" that they were in favor of 
> adopting the docs as an experimental platform (not exclusive):
>
>   * Hums overwhelmingly agreed we should go forward with the adoption
>     of the documents as an experimental option.
>
>
>
> Laura
>
>> On Apr 6, 2015, at 9:55 AM, David IMAP Mailstore 
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 6, 2015, at 9:49 AM, <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>> For those that missed the ICNRG meeting in Dallas, we voted to adopt 
>>> the CCNx protocol drafts as ICNRG drafts.
>> No, we did not. We don't vote.
>> We took the sense of the room, which was to adopt the drafts as RG 
>> Drafts, as opposed to individual contributions.
>>
>> Also, per IRTF procedures, no decisions are made definitively in 
>> meetings. They are taken by a poll on the mailing list, which has not 
>> yet occurred. I hope to get a message on this out to the list this week.
>>
>> Also, I any of these messages, please be sure people are pointed to 
>> the IPR disclosure associated with them so peoe can assess what if 
>> any problems that poses.
>>
>> Thanks (chair hat on)
>> DaveO
>>
>>> Please make sure that you take the time and read through the current 
>>> set of drafts so you can provide feedback.
>>>
>>> CCNx Semantics: 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxsemantics-01
>>> This draft describes the semantics of the CCNx protocol 
>>> independently of encoding.
>>>
>>> CCNx Packet Format: 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxmessages-01
>>> This draft  specifies a Type-Length-Value (TLV) packet format 
>>> and the TLV type and value encodings for the CCNx network protocol 
>>> as specified in th CCNx Semantics document.
>>>
>>> For your reference, additional specifications have also been submitted:
>>>
>>>   * CCNx Labeled Content:
>>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxlabeledcontent-00
>>>   * CCNx Content Object Chunking:
>>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxchunking-00
>>>   * CCNx End-to-End Fragmentation:
>>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxfragmentation-00
>>>   * CCNx Serial Versioning:
>>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxserialversion-00
>>>
>>>
>>> We would like to get a new set of drafts out for the next ICNRG 
>>> meeting, so keep this in mind if you want to send feedback or 
>>> contribute. The cut-off date for drafts is 2015-07-06. We would like 
>>> to have the updates ready at least a week before to schedule meeting 
>>> time as needed.
>>>
>>> Many thanks!
>>>
>>> Laura
>>> ----
>>> Laura Hill
>>> Manager, Documentation and Information Architecture
>>> Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)
>>> [phone]
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg