Re: [Roll] New proposed charter

In my view that would be return from experience and for the lack of it better alignment to AODVv2 operations which are better proven in the real world.

Makes sense?

Pascal

Le 18 d?c. 2015 ? 19:49, Prof. Diego Dujovne <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl<mailto:diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>> a ?crit :

Pascal,
            As far as I can understand, the basis of that work
should be RFC6997. Which would be the main missing elements
to go for a standard track?
            Regards,

                                              Diego

2015-12-18 15:28 GMT-03:00 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>>:
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:roll-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: vendredi 18 d?cembre 2015 18:06
> To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com<mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>>
> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>; Ines Robles
> <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com<mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter
>
>
> Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com<mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>> 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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr%2BIETF@sandelman.ca>>, Sandelman Software Works
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

--
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Acad?mico Escuela de Ingenier?a en Inform?tica y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingenier?a UDP
www.ingenieria.udp.cl<http://www.ingenieria.udp.cl>
(56 2) 676 8125
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll