IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

"Don Sturek" <d.sturek@att.net> Thu, 16 December 2010 14:25 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 E88B628C136 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 06:25:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 c6d1kfiS-0IR for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 06:25:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm21-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm21-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.220]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 338BE28C11F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 06:25:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [98.139.91.70] by nm21.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2010 14:27:21 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.11] by tm10.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2010 14:27:21 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1011.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2010 14:27:21 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 371290.86475.bm@omp1011.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 66856 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2010 14:27:21 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1292509641; bh=cJnzuinjw2whPKqJ3JXX8f11JREHx2ETrJ2pR/1OxHw=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Reply-To:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=MxYJXNaPWh51P7cP6PePZb72EEPMXlecD4u02dDQape95nbuPTiQYUeeB9NN7+56zNq1knURLQV/uHGxit4TY8rFT4/HxcUMMQzuF/rFXd/tLyNnxkBYTRiqdSuWZxOBdwaJS0o3CkkggEI+egxUv/k2VNEWCJy7smB4SHkSCB8=
Received: from Studio (d.sturek@69.105.138.114 with login) by smtp127.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 2010 06:27:18 -0800 PST
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
X-YMail-OSG: .Xow4AMVM1mHrd2wokB_DlSFUGPB.FohaBtJmAuAvQASVhf j8ciQCQaLhiLbut42V7ACR5w.6em69dzsrTcruXjsc75BRXbqtxzRNdqUr9K nJss9.Dq7Jj6OjFB9TdXWijy7k0MTe2Ws0JvmXIcM2JtkSui4a8sNtPK70MY W4u8.eacPIqK5fS2AFkU0BW.VUa0QjkBdMRZuQvyrppDTIdoUeD2JTASUxap 7q6V9uzZyHOqxK_qPcYz1FY7pQwSs7TFWw9Wnmfk8tJq1jujSVLvMiVjHrBA -
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: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 06:27:13 -0800
Message-ID: <005701cb9d2d$556395b0$002ac110$@sturek>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcudKJL1mR04nIDBQa+KRdZ8obH6ewAA6D7g
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: "'Fred Baker (fred)'" <fred@cisco.com>
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: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:25:40 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email