Re: [Roll] routing-dispatch (6lorh) change in ownership from 6LO to ROLL

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Fri, 18 March 2016 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D51B12D7FC; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4xipuYGY_nnr; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 228FA12D8E3; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1848; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458309213; x=1459518813; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=CSUKV9bFYpVAqbGeQPh+VEpn4Y1PivTVBS1NeaPgMPg=; b=EK+jcu8m87LQVVw9UjMS1Gd19SkyqebsM28jXPMibR4BgZ+kKEw28yBL AnzH1flwwv0SNUFklIgeRImDZNfuXRYQEYLC+dPElNTurnOd7kYn+LWfD rWJNVR5TXikHGfjjdCe9rNRfWpRJuc/MnqgGpKpupOCkR55INKMKAJy7c 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,355,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="84199830"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Mar 2016 13:53:31 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2IDrVO4028728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:53:31 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:53:31 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:53:31 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
Thread-Topic: routing-dispatch (6lorh) change in ownership from 6LO to ROLL
Thread-Index: AdGAmop9h2qYFLg/TgebhfKJtHrSXwAZ6IKwAA8MvAAACHHOAA==
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:53:14 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:53:08 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:07:35 -0700
Cc: "" <>, Brian Haberman <>, "" <>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, "" <>, Suresh Krishnan <>, "" <>, Gabriel Montenegro <>, "James Woodyatt \(\)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] routing-dispatch (6lorh) change in ownership from 6LO to ROLL
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:53:49 -0000

Hello Michael
>     > 1) Can I submit as draft-roll or do we need an adoption call there?
> That's a good question.  My instinct is that since the adoption call was
> actually done in ROLL already, no.  Drafts can just be adopted by chairs.

I'm sure you meant adoption done at 6lo. And I agree with you entirely. An adjacent point being that we have a lot of cross participation and that ROLL members actually participated to the call at 6lo which was heavily advertised on 6lo, ROLL, and 6TiSCH.

>     > 2) Draft -6lorh is stable, ready to last call IMHO. The critical
>     > decisions involving formats and header orders are probably already
>     > taken. What may be still subject to discussion and that is of specific
>     > value to ROLL is bit mapping to protocols or things like that. Since
>     > we are transitioning areas, it would be good that 6lo expresses a
>     > blessing of the current shape and form so that unless there is a major
>     > change, we do not need to recirculate the document again through
> areas
>     > to go to IESG. Based on the fact that 6lo adopted it in the first
>     > place, will 6lo be happy that the ROLL WG completes the editorial work
>     > on RPL relayed semantics and ships from routing area without handing
>     > back the result?
> So you are perhaps asking for a Consensus call on the shape of the 6LoRH
> solution from the 6lo WG?

Yes, Ideally I'd like to see it as 6lo saying, well, we're done and happy but prior to IESG please review it from the ROLL / RPL perspective to ensure completeness WRT to the aspect relevant to RPL. Maybe all we need os the chairs telling us that they feel the consensus exists at 6lo, and that they are happy to delegate the last call to ROLL?

Take care,