IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] New proposed charter

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 13 December 2015 18:34 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 0D04A1B2B28 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:34:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 7Ky0u9N5opIM for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:34:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8429A1A8A72 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:34:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC0F2002A for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:40:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A664163797 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ88=bcP7VHghkdhaJJNkJrZ982HRLc3GK2ee=AgU7BZt0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP+sJUfYLXN7z5b3UtXbs9a_JQjCfBpJGrihQru+k8wTFsOTbQ@mail.gmail.com> <d176b79c1f4b46f3ae144bd03c5ec94e@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CADnDZ88OvB1u5cPyUZz=TLQ4iYXMaq1wqq3Z1-i7Q9rUEo12GQ@mail.gmail.com> <12487.1449869206@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CADnDZ88=bcP7VHghkdhaJJNkJrZ982HRLc3GK2ee=AgU7BZt0Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+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: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500
Message-ID: <24881.1450031688@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-pU8>
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: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:34:51 -0000

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 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.

New routing protocols should not be in scope in my opinion.
I'm pretty sure that the Area Directors would share that opinion.

So, your suggestion to amend the charter to work on additional routing
protocols (vs extensions to 6550) is not well received.  But, even if it were
well received, the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new
routing protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem is.

    > 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.

You can discuss anything mesh-over, LLN-related you like on the list.
If it clearly has a better home, we may ask you to change venues, but that's
all.  

    > 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.

Perhaps we are using different words.

What is a "new one experimental ROLL-protocol"?
Maybe what you are proposing is what I would call an extension to 6550.
Or maybe you are talking about something entirely different
.
Does this new protocol exist already?  It is conceptually different than RPL
or BABEL or OLSR or AODV?  
If such a thing is justified, why wouldn't it justify a new working group?

-- 
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