Re: [Roll] RPL Next Steps

[Tim Winter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jerry,

Sorry for the confusion-
The individual submission, draft-dt-roll-rpl, had made it to revision -01 with
the OCP additions.  The WG draft, draft-ietf-roll-rpl, is still at -00.  (The
contents are equivalent).

So the next revision of the WG document will be be draft-ietf-roll-rpl-01

Thanks,

-Tim


[e-mail] wrote:
> 
> 
> */This sounds like a plan.   However, aren't you talking about the -02
> version?  I thought we already have a -01 version that introduced 'OCP'?/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tim Winter <[e-mail]>*
> Sent by: [e-mail]
> 
> 08/11/2009 06:00 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	ROLL WG <[e-mail]>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	[Roll] RPL Next Steps
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WG,
> 
> Please find below some additional feedback from the design team on the
> questions that have been raised so far for RPL.  Not everything has been
> covered- but the questions have served to point out some areas of the draft
> where we need to continue and focus efforts.
> 
> We (DT) propose, in the -01 version of the draft, to clarify as much
> as possible the outstanding questions and concerns in the current
> specification of RPL, with emphasis on the existing (-00) mechanisms.  The
> intent is to provide a solid, unambiguous, implementable, foundation of the
> existing core mechanisms in -01.  On this foundation we can then continue
> to build and expand other necessary mechanisms in later revisions, such as
> are being discussed for P2P routing.  There is no doubt that the P2P issues
> need to be further discussed and addressed, but the thought is that by
> clearing up the existing mechanisms we may be able to make better progress
> in moving forward beyond the existing mechansisms in later revisions.
> 
> WG, how does this sound as a strategy to make progress on RPL?
> 
> 
<SNIP>