Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Call to confirm a rough consensus on RPL info

Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> Wed, 22 October 2014 02:17 UTC

Return-Path: <twatteyne@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8F11A8A25; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VA4n7Mt0h7ky; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DFA31A8A1A; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id kx10so2640545pab.23 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=+o7VwoIzZJNJ/gS+pwDlEfNYa6DwOs2OQJuAHwW70o4=; b=eFTdceN3NG/As/qLPqJgx4wmtVpoFODWo7eZTZrOuDqAfV2PqboY8LLNJ/te9A+qzP OXKS5DLu31AAx5pOfJviwW4HbrXBxYnPkC24bpZRnr2v+5vTQ1NUklOoYAzW6Sg8OGyF jQsXzjmj13Tw/FmmeMh/QuJJIDSWWsdDLbjmQ44P722fxWxe5dnDub/dbFRPDldmRJiW iG6jNF0LcVpvSX4TeiRPrYWP2BAqTnSR+sVPvE4nv5raPTNNaStyIcgo8I4n8yzA7M+Q al7ov00r2tqKrmzdxiR1f1hzF/HhZ4/f+FcJnXSCQEqTlCmrusOU2apXIIiDLKpoXoRR M0GA==
X-Received: by 10.68.235.103 with SMTP id ul7mr39187937pbc.63.1413944237695; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: twatteyne@gmail.com
Received: by 10.66.250.169 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D06C76D5.2136%randy.turner@landisgyr.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842E1AEC5@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CAMsDxWQKgRvY+4LmMEB9LWqNQDipCmeq8ot3aR=wJNedgstVnA@mail.gmail.com> <CADJ9OA94sQESoqAb4uJHV5NML2FroSXk9QfjPBujAUXgsKQfqw@mail.gmail.com> <D06C76D5.2136%randy.turner@landisgyr.com>
From: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:16:57 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: PwgN_FPqEl-_179p6RC5wErKj5Q
Message-ID: <CADJ9OA809GACzt0+hCP87eWdBb+QZ=zESf-YbGD+YK73WTVoJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Turner, Randy" <Randy.Turner@landisgyr.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33cfaa0528070505f98cb4
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/VTC43GGwXuPFgoPTXd3OUWm9mbs
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6tisch] 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, 22 Oct 2014 02:17:20 -0000

Randy,
Are you alluding to 6554?
Thomas

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Turner, Randy <Randy.Turner@landisgyr.com>
wrote:

>
>  I think I’m +1 on the proposal – was compression of 6553 options the
> ONLY required compression in the “minimal” case ? (apologies…I wasn’t on
> the call) I did a quick search of minimal-02 and didn’t see the word
> compression anywhere.
>
>  Thanks!
> Randy
>
>   From: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>
> Reply-To: "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 8:38 PM
> To: "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
> Cc: "6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@tools.ietf.org>rg>, "
> 6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>rg>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>rg>, "
> roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org>rg>, "
> 6tisch-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6tisch-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Call to confirm a rough consensus on RPL info
>
>   +1 on the proposal.
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Xavier Vilajosana <
> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>>  I fully support that approach. Hope to contribute and make it happen as
>> soon as possible.
>>
>>  regards,
>> Xavi
>>
>> 2014-10-15 8:32 GMT+02:00 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>om>:
>>
>>
>>  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
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Pascal
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roll mailing list
>>> Roll@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>
>>
>
>  P PLEASE CONSIDER OUR ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL.
>
> This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized
> representative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using,
> copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments.
> If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any
> attachments. Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>