Re: [Roll] New proposed charter

[Randy Turner <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ines,

We might want to consider rolling items from 6553, 6551, etc. back into an overall “RPL Protocol” RFC – not everything, but items that we have found in implementation to be a requirement for a workable RPL implementation.

It would make it easier for implementers to have fewer docs to read and understand – I could come up with a few examples in a future email. Some of what I'm talking about would be the IP-in-IP stuff, as well as extension headers.  

Also, I would like to consider other options for routing besides strictly storing and non-storing, or mixed storing/non-storing

Also, re-visiting the recent DAO/DAO-ACK discussions and possibly clarifying behavior (as alluded to by Csaba in an earlier email)

Randy

On December 11, 2015 at 10:01 AM Ines Robles <[e-mail]> wrote:

Dear all:

We propose the following text to replace the current (much longer) charter [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/" rel="nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/], please let us know your opinion about this.

If you think that other specific topic should be included, please let us know as well.

Charter proposed might be:

RFC 6550 was published in 2012, and has seen several successful deployments.

Over time, additional issues have come up, including issues in the data plane of when to use IPinIP headers, and how to compress them, as well as the standardization of a mixed storing/non-storing mechanism.

The WG is chartered to look at enhancements and maintenance to the RPL protocol, with the aim of eventually revising and advancing RFC 6550 to Internet Standard.

Thank you very much,

Michael and Ines.

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll