Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

Cool

On Dec 16, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Don Sturek wrote:

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