Re: [Roll] WRT adopting draft-rahul-roll-rpl-observations as WG document

Hi Michael,

thanks for a drastic point of view concerning 6550bis with removal of
storing mode.What will removing SM mean for existing installations?.
Removing SM means at least a 6550bis RFC and no update documents.

Personally I am in favor of RPL 1.2 such that legacy can be managed.

BTW are there volunteers for the writing?

Peter

Michael Richardson schreef op 2018-07-30 21:59:

> {been watching the youtube video of the ROLL session}
> 
> 1) I think that the work in roll-rpl-observations is really important.
> -> that's why we should adopt the document so that it can have priority
> over other non-WG documents in the agenda.
> As our AD pointed out, we don't have to publish it.
> 
> 2) Starting rfc6550bis or rfc6550updates is very important!!!
> We have some options on how to do this, one of which is to publish a bunch
> of very small updates.  That's probably the lowest latency way, but it
> does cause more IESG and RFC-EDITOR work.
> So I think that we will be forced to publish a ~60-page update document
> that collects all sorts of things.
> 
> 3) I'd like to move to obsolete (mark as "historical") storing mode in favour
> of dao-projection mode.  I think that this is mostly orthogonal to the updates work, but
> if we agree that we are going in that direction, there might be updates
> that we don't need to do.
> 
> 4) We need a new node capabilities mechanism.  It could be quite
> controversial as there are a lot of design choices here.  maybe we should 
> probably encourage implementations, and then experimental RFCs. 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll