Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 16 December 2010 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 CC0BC3A6A20 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:54:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.363
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 10Cl-tKfiFSM for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:54:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA5F3A6A1F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:54:08 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,357,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="391869270"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2010 23:55:54 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com [10.32.244.221]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBGNtnHD004588; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:55:54 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:55:54 -0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com on Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:55:54 -0800
Subject: Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <005701cb9d2d$556395b0$002ac110$@sturek@att.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:55:40 -0800
Message-Id: <5A0C0340-98D7-4ED1-8CD8-335D610EC9B2@cisco.com>
References: <4D0A19C0.4020409@innovationslab.net> <005701cb9d2d$556395b0$002ac110$@sturek@att.net>
To: d.sturek@att.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 'Brian Haberman' <brian@innovationslab.net>, 'IPv6 WG Mailing List' <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:54:09 -0000

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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>