RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

Hi Fred,

Thanks for the note.  We (the ZigBee team) will create a test report for
what we have tested.  Should have a draft soon (we will try to have
something by the end of next week since we already have the test reports and
just need to recast them as a draft and highlight the v6man draft tests)

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:56 PM
To: d.sturek@att.net
Cc: 'Brian Haberman'; 'IPv6 WG Mailing List'; 'JP Vasseur'
Subject: Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

Don - see 

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1246.txt
1246 Experience with the OSPF Protocol. J. Moy. July 1991. (Format:
     TXT=70441, PS=141924, PDF=84633 bytes) (Also RFC1247, RFC1245)
     (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

When we advance a routing protocol to Proposed Standard, for reasons related
to ancient IESG history related to routing, we generally require a test
report that shows interoperable implementations of the standard in question.
As you can imagine, there was an NDA around the various events RFC 1246
reports - you won't find comments on the fact that Cisco's initial
implementation of OSPF was a demon's delight, but you will find comments on
who tested, and what the outcome of the testing was after we (yes, I was
there, while working at ACC) all fixed our bugs.

It would be very helpful if you could, with the implementors in question,
filed a report on the testing.

On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Don Sturek wrote:

> Hi Brian,
> 
> Don Sturek, chair for the ZigBee Alliance IPv6 standardization.
> 
> We are using both the drafts (draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers and
> draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header) for our interoperability testing.
Here
> is some background:
> 1)  We have 9 implementing companies all doing non-storing ROLL RPL using
> downward routing
> 2)  We started interop testing in January 2010, meet every month and have
> been testing downward routing for around 4 months
> 3)  We have not run into any issues (we have contact with Jonathan Hui and
> JP so may have let them  know of any issues but I don't recall them).  I
can
> send you one of our recent interop reports under our ZigBee-IETF liaison
> agreement if you are interested.
> 
> We would be interested in seeing these drafts move forward in the WG.  We
> think they are essential to implementing non-storing ROLL RPL.  By the
way,
> our target deployment is for Smart Metering applications in the home area
> network.  I added Fred Baker who chairs the Smart Power group who is aware
> of our work.
> 
> Sorry for not letting you know about this earlier.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Don Sturek
> Chair, ZigBee Core Stack Working Group (responsible for standardization of
> the "ZigBee IP")
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Brian Haberman
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:53 AM
> To: IPv6 WG Mailing List
> Subject: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls
> 
> All,
>    Working group last calls ended 10 days ago for the two RPL-related
> drafts (draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option and
> draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header). By my count, each draft received
> *1* comment.  The chairs cannot and will not advance a draft to the IESG
> with so little feedback.  We request that WG participants review these
> drafts and provide their feedback on them.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian & Bob
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 