Re: [Roll] New proposed charter

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

My previous message was my reply to the request of the chair that welcome
opinions and new recharter, so I did not understand that there are things
out of scope.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

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

There were discussions about use cases before, but I just need to discuss
first, then see if we can do ID. No protocol can satisfy all use cases.

So we can discuss first, and then decide if their is availability,

>
> This is exactly how RPL-P2P came about.
>

Yes there was discussions, some may prefer to do it off-line, and then
write IDs,

>
> If extensions (whether experimental or not), can address the need then they
> would be in scope for this WG.


Ok, but that is why I am replying to the proposing call, so I am discussing
that issue and others,


>   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.
>

I don't think it is out of scope.

Participants are the ones to decide/discuss where new protocols go (don't
forget directors can participate without hats), and directors only have the
final decision after our discussions. Therefore, I hope we discuss
recharter without initial directions/force.

 So I think that new proposal for the recharter should make the option open
for new one experimental ROLL-protocol, to encourage new ideas.

AB