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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 18 March 2016 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B727D12D533; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 05:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FkaahxJASSK9; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 05:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7991512D571; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 05:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4004200A7; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:50:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC856374E; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:48:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0a3e093af6aa4648abc0ed798d92ae5c@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <BN1PR03MB0725DAF0801633B06EB4018958B0@BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <0a3e093af6aa4648abc0ed798d92ae5c@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:48:26 -0400
Message-ID: <8928.1458305306@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/FOxmh56vdjLS9Ff_ZUqTqz5XqYk>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:07:22 -0700
Cc: "6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch@tools.ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch@tools.ietf.org>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, "James Woodyatt \(jhw@nestlabs.com\)" <jhw@nestlabs.com>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] routing-dispatch (6lorh) change in ownership from 6LO to ROLL
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:48:29 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > That is perfectly fine with me, and I have 2 procedural questions:

    > 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.

    > 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?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG outgoing co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/