IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

"Don Sturek" <d.sturek@att.net> Wed, 29 December 2010 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <d.sturek@att.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D17428C10C for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:03:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.614, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GoF0V4u3WzXg for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm25-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm25-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.73]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 093F33A6866 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:03:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [98.138.90.51] by nm25.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Dec 2010 18:05:04 -0000
Received: from [98.138.89.173] by tm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Dec 2010 18:05:04 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1029.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Dec 2010 18:05:04 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 552366.77147.bm@omp1029.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 71330 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2010 18:05:04 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1293645904; bh=eRzqmr1C2g4+gSafmje6XS9gmfrYom5DZ7fP82wKBZw=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Reply-To:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=vBBlzqMo/ZIrrscVI8l24xhM+o3tKj5FNhUFVNxpsY4UIjBc+T33AcGXIHnWu+pRdT9JutGOzwOGkwFbVSHMHRZ0ncRQoem67hQQ7W6N4fy7XJSnNDXHhDmeEPEgpH/zSdEfagwxE7xnk8EwEzulM1LzVvDqqEpfcyp1TO8Yb1Y=
Received: from Studio (d.sturek@69.224.191.84 with login) by smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Dec 2010 10:04:57 -0800 PST
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
X-YMail-OSG: .c0pScEVM1nsCSHXDP6ds0Cq9H5xDmwZIYWGanqmKxjZ2Rv N5OTGxv16hdY4.hfAaiSkMuk6DumrYGu9BTrpPCyQCWrbHROVlCM.BaRI1pj MWd66XdPmKJheSNI.bMM3qPK49JoXIllMchV8zRILqCB9Tp7K3.t4FVCKF5l eWdXav8WTGkjDiasNgP76_4KKa17TgTFfzMXkTwM_f.HAr0JXyqrFkbhB.uf IAOs11Rd83admXEszduFtL59vyq6TpQuQO656OwYwUGyuvZIj6eC0Z2T.5hm rA35cuIVdUoJewGEkEA9oWA1Uk2KENqRzGBa4aEwYTKFbQF649TSLFBz2AIK QUlsx
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
From: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
To: 'Brian Haberman' <brian@innovationslab.net>, 'IPv6 WG Mailing List' <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <4D0A19C0.4020409@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D0A19C0.4020409@innovationslab.net>
Subject: RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:04:50 -0800
Message-ID: <009401cba782$e3c8dd10$ab5a9730$@sturek>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0095_01CBA73F.D5A59D10"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcudKJL1mR04nIDBQa+KRdZ8obH6ewKWQ12g
Content-Language: en-us
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 08:04:47 -0800
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: d.sturek@att.net
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:03:12 -0000

Hi Brian,

Sorry for the delay in getting this to you.  Attached are the results of the
ZigBee Alliance testing using the RPL-related drafts
draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option and draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header.

Here are the relevant attachments:
1)  Test spec we are using.  We are testing PANA, EAP-TLS, ROLL-RPL as well
as the two drafts so the relevant parts are the ones where you find RH4
(near the bottom since the higher test cases are around joining and
authentication)
2)  Test results. Company names were removed per the engagement rules in the
ZigBee Alliance.

Here is the only relevant comment we had to the drafts:  "Use latest
rpl-routing-header option draft; in our topologies, typically comprI will be
set to 0x0e; and comprE can be 0x0e or 0x00 ( usecase for comprE = 0 is not
clear ); but node should be able to receive and process any value".  Our
only question is what comprE=0 is used for.

Sorry for the format of these.  I know this is not typical for IETF but I
ran out of time to format these.  Let me know if the format is a problem.

Don Sturek
Chair, ZigBee Alliance Core Stack Working Group (responsible for "ZigBee IP"
profile to define an interoperable IEEE 802.15.4 based solution with IPv6).





-----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
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email