Re: [Roll] WG call to adopt draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-03

Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> Thu, 21 February 2013 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <d.sturek@att.net>
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 8007221E8039 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:39:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2xw5BUMmAUOh for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm22.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm22.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.223]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A2721E8047 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [66.94.237.195] by nm22.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Feb 2013 21:39:13 -0000
Received: from [68.142.198.204] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Feb 2013 21:39:13 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp105.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Feb 2013 21:39:13 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1361482753; bh=G8Ts1SCrUgAPpZ5b6N1xJobhG+VLRN4/GrR6FDXLopM=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=uGsS+08z1cCxLdUbfNdRuFfNFYn6SvU08iV1EpuxGg1RW/SrEr/nNbA0xRb7Bt6RKdwXArY9BBY944sm0T7MZvDWDpIdzc0YUQRaV5nI0BjG0r9vDpwuOTJ6DRtJ2gOWEGMs68Gwr68Jm5Wbfh/CUmoGq9G4YHtoiE7rMNYYcw0=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 69835.17230.bm@smtp105.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: xSHZu30VM1l7nhCGA5fRjlvqRdttT6tYgJTyiBv4UTKY9QG 4VnEAxwQQlt96eF6Xcr0GKGtb6XKLIWp_Ssi7EkKIscLZ.UxCeIBfQfXvEtI l.ms0DLs43wZzwgxRO_F3sZZ9vv3nj7mkx_EvghbUs9NSHVJRA5uDwG1Ca3I UOJ_3NfiRaTbXCeDScf1BKKDAE_hipl1HT5RPw0qI6J5GZYClgvwkaugtI2L 1oWyAdLFOLCIQCwgdUc1PDQjufDOp1p4.GfHooE1ii2_258F_yi_4rEIQotg NeibIWhJfWHxWMGQL5EXoc7i_Lkvkbi.p5t.UYkpSTZlBs_tn57QCOHq36zk LrBigHGyKckvewWXYCzx4CykUUyGHIfT4Wbw0j_Gt0Q9LbtQldMOs7SeVWhZ EcTxqtpnJr6oxeW0p1MELy.S4rutO7veRSgUeUfohWMSVHlkohgL4_ozXZ1B lxSTg8N656gBHkw7Je7zhFGgqzC9dUTmXX58X2Q--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
Received: from [192.168.0.199] (d.sturek@67.124.203.226 with login) by smtp105.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 2013 13:39:12 -0800 PST
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:37:55 -0800
From: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <CD4BD2FD.1E424%d.sturek@att.net>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] WG call to adopt draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-03
In-Reply-To: <16168.1361477562@sandelman.ca>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] WG call to adopt draft-brandt-roll-rpl-applicability-home-building-03
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: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:39:14 -0000

Hi Michael,

No, however, I was hoping the applicability statement would outline the
list of features of the protocol that map to solving home and building
automation issues.

I do, however, expect that the applicability statement by itself is
insufficient to build interoperable vendor solutions (plus the IETF does
not create certification programs).  So the main purpose is to provide a
document to groups like:  Z-Wave, ZigBee, CABA, ASHRAE, BACnet, etc. where
they can begin to define protocols that fit their use cases.

Don


On 2/21/13 12:12 PM, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

>
>>>>>> "Don" == Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> writes:
>    Don> Having implemented and certified 6 vendor solutions using ROLL
>    Don> RPL in ZigBee IP, I doubt very seriously that this is true:
>
>    Don> "......because these are questions that need to be answered if
>    Don> we are going to have interoperability between muyltiple vendors
>    Don> without resorting to yet another level of vendor forums)"
>
>    Don> It would be best to keep the scope of the applicability
>    Don> statement to just RPL P2P, not add assumptions on the use of
>    Don> outside RFCs/drafts and let commercial groups complete
>    Don> certification by choosing configuration parameters that address
>    Don> their needs.
>
>Don, are you offering to take the Home and Building Applicability
>statement to a vendor forum, and produce a document which a *building
>architect* (not a member of said vendor forum) can list on a NAFTA
>Article 10-compliant RFP, and which will tell an implementor (also not a
>member of said vendor forum) what pieces need to be implemented in order
>to interoperate? 
>
>Because, that's the situation for all other IETF (routing) specifications.
>
>-- 
>]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
>networks [ 
>]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network
>architect  [ 
>]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails
>   [ 
>	
>