Re: [Roll] New proposed charter

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>:

> 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] On Behalf Of Michael
> Richardson
> > Sent: vendredi 18 décembre 2015 18:06
> > To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>; Ines
> Robles
> > <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter
> >
> >
> > Abdussalam Baryun <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>, Sandelman Software Works
> > IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>


-- 
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
www.ingenieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125