Re: [Roll] New proposed charter

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Same as Michael

I'll note that we still have that RPL P2P is still experimental work, and it would deserve a standard track version at some point.
Is there energy (and charter) in the WG to work on that?

Cheers,

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: vendredi 18 décembre 2015 18:06
> To: Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>; Ines Robles
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter
> 
> 
> Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair has to ask the
>     > working group to say what they want to be in scope. What is done so far is
>     > that our group chair is asking for new charter but still has the old scope of
>     > one protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has the power to
> change
>     > the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussion.
> 
> I am quite certain:
>   a) that the IESG will not approve a WG charter that includes more than one
>      routing protocol.
>   b) that I don't want to be chair of a group that works on multiple
>      protocols in the same WG.
>   c) that should the IESG do such a thing, that I will have significant
>      feedback for nomcom.
> 
> Meanwhile, I will repeat:
>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-pU8
> 
> ++ the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new routing
> ++ protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem is.
> 
> So, if you have a draft that explains why another protocol is necessary, please
> point us to it.  It would certainly help figure out where the problem should be
> discussed; it could turn out that it's a trivial extension to the existing
> specification.
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/