Re: [Roll] New proposed charter

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 18 December 2015 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
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 52BCE1B2DF1 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 1Jz5xQ522yH9 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DB981B2A64 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id t125so111868442qkh.3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=27KzufAhJdstffaSeJsRtf6u8kNPQPVe0QIhl/XncJ0=; b=p2jURi5E72vk6tl5Hq0sKVqAP0YBHKTOMpulGQfy8U2gzzJ0j/8cygiS3XvIhQVNRg ehdcnVsCwhKmoCz1uRb+0/feTHnrc93cEtbooUoU6DRyGMySWVODrwdzoIq/xs58eUsN 3KgAp5Va2tkx0131ImH99i40lk2MWAthDAIzypL0wU0D4OaJm5vPnZonxSdIOeYr80WO CuEX4M7lf4rLj28aqL2VSDIxXeIqGbHm728I07g0w3aLtpg151thVjZZpGiU/5ey6k2f F6JzBtQO67+wq6KlZM6d5960/mWXhFVlLbKMRT0YkxgZiTf/bs0wafyCld0EcPHyaEMF 43uQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.212.92 with SMTP id l89mr5387653qki.70.1450448790228; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.95.22 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:26:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com>
References: <CAP+sJUfYLXN7z5b3UtXbs9a_JQjCfBpJGrihQru+k8wTFsOTbQ@mail.gmail.com> <1676228924.7990.1449851481478.JavaMail.vpopmail@atl4oxapp102.mgt.hosting.qts.netsol.com> <11866.1449869031@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1BB1E83B-243B-41EF-8898-EB372D289C27@amalfisystems.com> <23010.1450031144@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <687E3051-78DB-4425-9261-53D43B6D25CE@amalfisystems.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:26:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8_g+GGM9mgEjs59RCdV3YjXW-R0at15Df32r5Yp3sgneQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1149de9ce8130105272cec2b"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/vTa-ykTdJAajY6pBTd-KvFFCADc>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
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, 18 Dec 2015 14:26:33 -0000

I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair has to ask the
working group to say what they want to be in scope. What is done so far is
that our group chair is asking for new charter but still has the old scope
of one protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has the power to
change the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussion.
So hope the chair does not make conclusions on what is out of scope because
nothing is out of scope until WG decides. We only know what is in scope
when we get the approvals of our suggested addition out-scope to be
in-scope. Therefore, we can support Turner's proposals.

On Sunday, December 13, 2015, Randy Turner <rturner@amalfisystems.com>
wrote:

> I thought the discussion was around developing a new charter. If that's
> the case then nothing is "in scope" yet. If we're not discussing potential
> work items for a new charter then what is this thread about again?  I would
> be happy to work up a draft if that's what is required to get things "in
> scope"
>
> R.
>
> > On Dec 13, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Randy Turner <rturner@amalfisystems.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> The additional type of routing I was referring to was similar to this
> >> “hybrid”, but specific to multicast. Something like “Non-storing with
> >> multicast-storing”
> >
> >> This would be basically a non-storing mode of operation, except a node
> >> would just store multicast memberships that have been declared - if
> >> someone joins a multicast group, you store this…since memberships can
> >> be aggregated, it shouldn’t mean too much of a burden on the amount of
> >> memory required to store multicast routes.
> >
> > Write an ID, slides, etc..
> > If the IESG approves the proposed charter, it would be in scope.
> > (Today, it is not)
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca <javascript:;>>, Sandelman
> Software Works
> > IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org <javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>