Re: [Roll] Formation of a Routing Protocol Design Team for ROLL

[JP Vasseur <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> JP Vasseur a écrit :
> [...]
>> Charter
>> ######
>> The charter is fairly simple: produce an IPv6 routing solution for  
>> LLN (one of our new WG item) in light of the four application- 
>> specific routing requirements documents:
>> * draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs
>> * draft-ietf-roll-industrial-routing-reqs
>> * draft-ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs
>> * draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs
>> The routing solution may either be based on an extension of an  
>> existing routing protocol or a new protocol. In the former case,  
>> the design team is expected to interact with the WG that is  
>> responsible for the development of the protocol.
>
> And in the latter case?...

There is nothing specific to this WG: when a WG specify a protocol,  
the WG will have to decide whether or not interacting with a existing  
WG is necessary or not.

>  is the DT free to not interact with the WG and go ahead design a  
> new protocol?
>
> Who makes the choice new vs existing?  Is it the DT making that  
> choice?

As pointed out in the email:

"* The work produced by a Design Team has no special status in the WG  
and is subject to WG consensus as any other individual submission"

The DT will make that choice - Anyone is free to make any proposal.

JP.

>
> Alex
>
>> Please make sure to be aligned with the ROLL terminology document  
>> and provide input to their authors should new terms be introduced.
>> According to our charter, it is asked to pay a particular attention  
>> to the security and manageability aspects of the routing solution.
>> The Design Team is not tasked to produce a MIB for the routing  
>> solution.
>> Milestones
>> #########
>> May 1: produce a first draft of the routing solution document
>> IETF-75 meeting: produce a more complete version of the document by  
>> the cut-off submission date for the IETF-75 meeting.
>> The Design Team will be dissolved once the WG will have adopted a  
>> routing solution document as a WG document (should it be the one  
>> proposed by the WG or not).
>> It is strongly encouraged to produce new version as the document  
>> progress (each time a substantial change is made to the document).
>> Thanks.
>> JP.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>