[Roll] RPL Status

JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com> Tue, 18 May 2010 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jpv@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA283A6862 for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2010 02:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NMpkOjX8Tl8i for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2010 02:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25D23A68B8 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 02:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAPL+8UurR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACde3Gib5oBhRAE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.53,254,1272844800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="198892070"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 May 2010 09:47:57 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4I9lqTg007816 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 09:47:57 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-202.cisco.com ([144.254.231.96]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 18 May 2010 11:47:42 +0200
Received: from ams-jvasseur-8716.cisco.com ([10.55.201.135]) by xfe-ams-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 18 May 2010 11:47:42 +0200
Message-Id: <D77B6BCD-BB54-4CA9-B532-C0C89E900215@cisco.com>
From: JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com>
To: roll WG <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-48--483881684"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 11:47:41 +0200
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2010 09:47:42.0502 (UTC) FILETIME=[291C8C60:01CAF66F]
Subject: [Roll] RPL Status
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 18 May 2010 09:48:14 -0000

Dear WG,

Here is a quick status. First, we would like to thank the WG again for  
the continuous effort and lots of fruitful and productive work ! As  
discussed in Anaheim, the plan is still to Last Call RPL before the  
next IETF. The plan is to release the next revision of the RPL I-D by  
end of next week. Rev-08 will  address the following:

1) Security section (integrating the work on the security DT)
2) New DAO mechanism (cleaner and more simple), as agreed on the  
Mailing List
3) Basic source routing  => See also companion drafts to be published  
very soon for (RH-0 like)
4) Updated manageability section
5) DAO ACK
6) Trickle algorithm removed from the core specification (in a  
separate doc), Examples removed
7) Several Edits, clarifications, ...

I had a discussion with David, and the plan is to have the P2P a  
separate ID (the current RPL specification provides basic P2P, with  
"advanced" P2P defined in that I-D), with the objective to progress  
both documents in parallel.

What else ?
We need to progress a few other documents:
1) Use of the RPL TLV: see draft-hui-6man-rpl-option (6man WG)
2) Source routing header (RH-0 like): to be published soon (Jonathan/ 
David)
3) RPL Variables (ticket #22)
4) ID related to measurement from P2P (if consensus on Mailing list)

Looking forward to your comments as soon as rev-08 will be published.

Thanks.

JP and David.