Re: [Roll] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-17.txt

Hi Michael

>My opinion is that none of the things changed affect real use 
cases that people currently deploying care about.

That is my opinion too.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks" <roll@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:46:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-17.txt

>>>>> "Mukul" == Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> writes:
    Mukul> Hi all

    Mukul> Besides a number of editorial changes, the new version (-17)
    Mukul> has the following key changes over the previous version:

Thank you Mukul, for persuing this process with the IESG reviewers.

My opinion is that much of this should have happened in sight of the WG,
but there is some changing IESG view as to how to do this.

I'd like to ask the WG to think strongly about the changes that have
occurred.    Do they affect your current or future usage of P2P?

If they do, then I think we need to talk about whether this means you
will write an enhancement document... reminding that P2P is going
forward as Experimental.  Likely it will switch tracks in 12 months once
there is some significant deployment reports.

We are in IESG review process, and we aren't doing another WGLC on
this.  My opinion is that none of the things changed affect real use 
cases that people currently deploying care about.

(and also thanks to the other authors)

(And remind that we a WGLC on mcast-trickle, aka "MPL" aka "Mipple")

-- 
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