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

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 18 March 2016 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B727D12D533; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 05:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FkaahxJASSK9; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 05:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7991512D571; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 05:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4004200A7; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:50:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC856374E; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:48:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
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: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:07:22 -0700
Cc: "" <>, Brian Haberman <>, "" <>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, "" <>, Suresh Krishnan <>, "" <>, Gabriel Montenegro <>, "James Woodyatt \(\)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] routing-dispatch (6lorh) change in ownership from 6LO to ROLL
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:48:29 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <> 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 <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG outgoing co-chair.