Re: [Roll] MOPex CAPs splitup

<> Thu, 21 November 2019 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AA7120940 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:41:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rLCjVZRnM4PR for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBE45120801 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.65]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 47JY1x3pLKz1yHf for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 09:41:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.89]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 47JY1x3BVkzDq7B for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 09:41:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCAUBM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d42b:2e80:86c2:5905]) by OPEXCAUBM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 09:41:25 +0100
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] MOPex CAPs splitup
Thread-Index: AQHVnsaVaOQouMoj+kCr0yYNY9bhuaeVxq+A
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:41:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <54F0137766AA554DADC7916460FD8056@adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] MOPex CAPs splitup
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:41:28 -0000

Hello all,

As an individual, I support the split, which will allow the easier part to
move forward quickly.
However, we should agree quickly what to do about 3.2, which currently
contradicts 3.1 and also ties MOPex and CAPabilities back together.
Best regards


Le 19/11/19 18:45, « Roll on behalf of Rahul Jadhav »
< on behalf of> a écrit :

>Hello All,
>During IETF106 we discussed splitting up MOPex and capabilities,
>reasons have been:
>1. MOPex and capabilities are not dependent on each other
>2. Capabilities draft may take a while for WGLC, while MOPex can be
>shipped sooner.
>Please let us know of your opinions.
>The following is the link for the separated draft.
>Reviews are highly appreciated.
>Roll mailing list


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.