IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] New proposed charter

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 11 December 2015 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 EBC291A8AE2 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:26:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 fHcuDRolFecT for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 916581A8ADE for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504A3E007 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:32:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE97263795 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:26:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ88OvB1u5cPyUZz=TLQ4iYXMaq1wqq3Z1-i7Q9rUEo12GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP+sJUfYLXN7z5b3UtXbs9a_JQjCfBpJGrihQru+k8wTFsOTbQ@mail.gmail.com> <d176b79c1f4b46f3ae144bd03c5ec94e@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CADnDZ88OvB1u5cPyUZz=TLQ4iYXMaq1wqq3Z1-i7Q9rUEo12GQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:26:46 -0500
Message-ID: <12487.1449869206@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/dsJpH8DiWryvF8xfD9CoE4G2b9o>
Subject: Re: [Roll] New proposed charter
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:26:49 -0000

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I think we should not look only into enhancement of RPL but looking
    > into one new proposed protocol (experimental). My question is why we
    > only have one standard protocol for ROLL?

Because that was in our original charter.

    > different/new scenarios now, so YES we chosen the one routing RPL as a
    > general purpose protocol for ROLL, now we need to do maintain RPL with
    > its future work, but we also can now see special cases where we need
    > new protocols for ROLL. We noticed that ROLL is more a special case of
    > other routing protocols in the internet but still we didn't go for
    > experimental drafts that cover special cases and implementations.

If you have new use cases that you believe can not be satisfied by RPL, then
you should detail them in an ID.

This is exactly how RPL-P2P came about.

If extensions (whether experimental or not), can address the need then they
would be in scope for this WG.  If an entirely new routing protocol is
needed, then that would be out of scope and would be up to the routing Area
Directors to decide where that work would be done.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email