Re: [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt

Carsten Bormann <> Fri, 15 June 2012 10:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B5921F85C5; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qPYTZ9iFwAI; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EFA21F85C0; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5FAhcsM014957; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA0625A8; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:38 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:38 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Don Sturek <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:43:55 -0000

> we don't have time for all these changes

It's likely that the next question that will come up is:

Should this be published as an informational RFC called "ZigBee's MLE protocol" because the protocol is no longer really meant to be modified in the process or should it be pursued as a standards track document?

(Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stability of protocols when there is running code.
Stability against gratuitous change and Brownian motion, that is.  
But not when there are good technical reasons to have the change.
We should be having the discussion on whether that's the case, I think.
And how the encapsulation of MLE works in the first place, something I don't understand yet.)

Grüße, Carsten