Re: [Roll] RPL Next Steps
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 18 August 2009 14:35 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 6A57D3A69CA for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.059
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.669, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 EwwajjqqD686 for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5414B3A6AD2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id n7IEZRAj024404 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:35:27 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n7IEZQZA008225; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:35:27 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id n7IEZQPZ004974; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:35:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4A8ABC2E.9070603@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:35:26 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tim Winter <wintert@acm.org>
References: <OF92EF1176.5D438D93-ON86257610.0051C496-86257610.00628656@jci.com> <4A831DC8.6000806@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A831DC8.6000806@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL Next Steps
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 Aug 2009 14:35:39 -0000
Did one know that OCP (RPL Objective Code Point) also stands for "Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) Callout Protocol (OCP) Core" RFC4037 on the Standards Track? Alex Tim Winter a écrit : > 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 > > > Jerald.P.Martocci@jci.com 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 <wintert@acm.org>* Sent by: roll-bounces@ietf.org >> >> 08/11/2009 06:00 PM >> >> To ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org> 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> > > _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >
- Re: [Roll] RPL Next Steps Jerald.P.Martocci
- Re: [Roll] RPL Next Steps Tim Winter
- [Roll] RPL Next Steps Tim Winter
- Re: [Roll] RPL Next Steps Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Roll] RPL Next Steps Alexandru Petrescu