Re: [Roll] summary of tickets on trickle-mcast

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael, and authors of the I-D

In your message you mention *we need to have discussion* but I think
we need something else. IMO, *We need replies from the authors*

The document after its last issue got many comments and tickets but
never updated even once, does it mean the authors didn't think that
people have difficulty in reading or understanding?

IMHO, please update considering why the comments, so you encourage
discussions and people to read again, including me :)

AB

On 1/22/13, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/report/8
> contains the list of open tickets.  There are some threads
> linked in each ticket.
>
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103
>   trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS
>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07424.html
>
>   This ticket has had no significant discussion.  Is there an issue
>   here?
>
>
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/104
>   security considerations.
>   We need to have a discussion about what are the implications
>   of this protocol.  See next message.
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/105
> trickle-mcast: how to determine scope of MPL domain
>   We have several options from Robert Craigie in the ticket system.
>   Alternatives 3 and 4 were discussed, and I think that we preferred
>   option 4 with the multicast option always present.
>   Please post if you disagree.
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/106
> trickle-mcast: always use 6in6 encapsulation for non-link-local multicast
>   no clear resolution, but ticket #105 suggests answer.
>
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/108
> trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field?
>   suggested answer was YES.
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/107
> trickle-mcast: should multiple parameter sets be supported
>   my conclusion: There is has been little discussion about this
>      issue. My inclination is to not include multiple sets at this
>      time.
>
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/109
> trickle-mcast: should all MPL packets be destined to all-MPL-forwarders
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>
>