Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt

[Richard Kelsey <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

As Don said, the intent is that MLE not be tied to RPL and that
it be submitted as an AD-sponsored submission.  I have spoken
with Ralph about it on several occasions.  We both would have
preferred that MLE go through a WG, but there doesn't seem to be
an appropriate one.  If MLE were intended for use exclusively
with ROLL (or MANET or 6LoWPAN), this wouldn't be an issue.

Ralph and I discussed it again yesterday, and decided to go with
an AD-sponsored submission.  My plan was to add some clarifications
to the draft before announcing it to the usual suspects (6lowpan,
MANET, ROLL).  This thread jumped the gun by a day or two.

                                  -Richard Kelsey

> From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[e-mail]>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:59:18 +0200
> 
> Hi Don,
> 
> On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard:
> > That is from memory, am I correct?)
> > 
> 
> If that's the case, then I think that it needs to be scoped
> carefully: the design and direction of the work required would
> (IMO) be very different if it aims narrowly for RPL, or broadly
> for "MESH", and the text in the specification should be very
> very clear as to this.
> 
> If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do honestly
> not know what the proper way of shaping the process / forum for
> discussions / framing of the specification would be, but I
> would hope that an AD could chirp in (as you say INT, have you
> discussed this with Brian or Ralph, and could you or either of
> them let us know?)
> 
> Note, I am not taking position for or against MLE at all - I
> just want to ensure that a specification published be scoped so
> as to not be constraining for domains for which it hasn't been
> discussed.
> 
> Thomas