[Roll] Call to confirm a rough consensus on RPL info

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 15 October 2014 06:32 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D811A038D; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 23:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TwWOEykfxOgU; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 23:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B99211A0383; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 23:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2080; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413354732; x=1414564332; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=UWg2SwqdGnb4tf0hwsVErBdWIZwVsmIbvRF/7jBwSOs=; b=hHyLf0KY9P5oQ4I4PuOlV85+ekhtUoPiwMULi7Y3vHD5ezWhF32NXEUw NwDSUK4nwiZNEUhKxgdA3YStj7D5fCC4cXlO8ntwHuFsCUj9pTjRiwXQH FvJY44gbDvImawsLghAHtKfhsdlyaoibvs9mqVH9UIbfBTXwlJbviGWcr k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,721,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="87059632"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2014 06:32:11 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com []) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9F6WBNU010768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:32:11 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 01:32:11 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Call to confirm a rough consensus on RPL info
Thread-Index: Ac/oQa0i5HZn0oJrT3qpZBX3hHGwVA==
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:32:10 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:32:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842E1AEC5@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/HibclQmJdNfcLGgjCA4_sjygWsU
Cc: "6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "6tisch-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6tisch-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: [Roll] Call to confirm a rough consensus on RPL info
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:32:16 -0000

Dear all: 

During the 6TiSCH bi-weekly virtual interim on Friday, we agreed that the minimal I-D (draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal) must indicate the compression method for the RPL Information (see RFC 6553), so as to ensure interoperation between 6TiSCH devices.

We discussed our options, basically either a 6lo approach or a Flow Label approach. The rough consensus at the call was to try and focus on a 6lo approach and evaluate where that leads us. 

Because this means that the minimal draft will have a normative reference on a WIP I-D, we recognized that this approach may delay the publication of the final RFC. Per IETF procedures, the minimal draft will be stalled in the RFC editor queue in MISREF state until the 6lo work completes. So the consensus was also to support the 6lo work so as to expedite it as much as possible. 

The idea would be to republish a standard track draft-ietf-6lo- ASAP, based on the existing proposals (which are rapidly converging); then, Xavi would include a normative reference to that work in the minimal I-D before its publication to IESG, which is scheduled in November (yes, this is aggressive).

This is a call to confirm the rough consensus on the ML, open till the next interim call on October 24th. Please provide us with any relevant comment (and participate to the 6lo discussions in the meantime!).

If the result is positive:
- we plan to call for a 6lo WG doc adoption in Hawaii
- we are looking for an aggressive schedule to limit the impact on the publication of the minimal RFC

6TiSCH may host the 6lo discussion so as to:
- benefit from the early morning schedule
- attract more 6TiSCH people to the discussion 

More the published minutes: 
- Webex recording: https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=36a3b7df06694258a3ac65bfc519212f 
- Wiki: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/wiki/141010_webex 
- Slides: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/src/master/141010_webex/slides_141010_webex.ppt