Re: [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt

[Thomas Heide Clausen <[e-mail]>]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for the clarifications, I appreciate it.

I look forward to the next version, which I will endeavor to review carefully with what you state below in mind.

Best,

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Heide Clausen
http://www.thomasclausen.org/

"Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to
 discuss it."
   -- Mitchell's Law of Committees


On 15 Jun 2012, at 19:38, Richard Kelsey <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
> 
> As Don said, the intent is that MLE not be tied to RPL and that
> it be submitted as an AD-sponsored submission.  I have spoken
> with Ralph about it on several occasions.  We both would have
> preferred that MLE go through a WG, but there doesn't seem to be
> an appropriate one.  If MLE were intended for use exclusively
> with ROLL (or MANET or 6LoWPAN), this wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> Ralph and I discussed it again yesterday, and decided to go with
> an AD-sponsored submission.  My plan was to add some clarifications
> to the draft before announcing it to the usual suspects (6lowpan,
> MANET, ROLL).  This thread jumped the gun by a day or two.
> 
>                                  -Richard Kelsey
> 
>> From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:59:18 +0200
>> 
>> Hi Don,
>> 
>> On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Thomas,
>>> 
>>> I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard:
>>> That is from memory, am I correct?)
>>> 
>> 
>> If that's the case, then I think that it needs to be scoped
>> carefully: the design and direction of the work required would
>> (IMO) be very different if it aims narrowly for RPL, or broadly
>> for "MESH", and the text in the specification should be very
>> very clear as to this.
>> 
>> If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do honestly
>> not know what the proper way of shaping the process / forum for
>> discussions / framing of the specification would be, but I
>> would hope that an AD could chirp in (as you say INT, have you
>> discussed this with Brian or Ralph, and could you or either of
>> them let us know?)
>> 
>> Note, I am not taking position for or against MLE at all - I
>> just want to ensure that a specification published be scoped so
>> as to not be constraining for domains for which it hasn't been
>> discussed.
>> 
>> Thomas