Re: [Roll] New proposed charter

+1. I cannot under any circumstance envisage the need for ROLL to work on a
new routing protocol. Extensions to RPL, for sure. But not a new routing
protocol.

Robert

On 18 December 2015 at 17:05, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> 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
>
>