Re: [Roll] rpl-p2p applicability statement
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 11 March 2013 22:49 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@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 0DC3021F8FE8 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0hJ-74bBLCBw for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F6621F8FE3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [130.129.20.151]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9963122060; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:49:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C92F8CA0BC; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:49:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: roll@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <6e4fbca8e8b8c6a61c0f0086cb4dfbcd@xs4all.nl>
References: <6e4fbca8e8b8c6a61c0f0086cb4dfbcd@xs4all.nl>
Comments: In-reply-to peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> message dated "Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:59:26 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:49:34 -0400
Message-ID: <7484.1363042174@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: anders Brandt <anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] rpl-p2p applicability statement
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:49:37 -0000
(sending to the list) >>>>> "peter" == peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> writes: peter> Do you agree to add the mpl applicability to building control peter> in the rpl-p2p applicability statement? or do you prefer a peter> different document for mpl applicability? I would like the applicability statements to explain how to explain how to apply the appropriate technologies to solve the problem. So, if you need P2P or MPL to solve your problem, then you should specify it, and say how you are going to use it. If there are sections missing in the template on MPL (I think that there are), then we should fill that in. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
- Re: [Roll] rpl-p2p applicability statement Michael Richardson