I ment......LLN WG = ROLL WG sorry I forgot the correct name, but there it is,
AB On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Abdussalam Baryun < abdussalambar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Robert and Gabriel, > > I did not follow these documents and did not review but I am not sure why > we don't have reviewers in IETF, while the group adopted it. I hope the > authors look into this issue and reply that they are the authors and they > want to drop it as well. If the authors don't want to continue authoring we > may get some interests from the group to continue it because we adopted it. > Authors are responsible to follow up any adopted document they author but > they need to follow with the group and see the group's views. Few authors > in IETF (ex. MANET) make some reviewers out of the picture and argue not to > follow comments/discussions. This behaviour I have seen in IETF but hope it > is not the reason for our problem. > > I see this as a problem, because I don't think we SHOULD depend on other > companies in adopting our work. I have argued with LLN WG before not to > close because of that, some thought that we have less companies interest in > the WG so close. We need to focus on humans/engineers not companies. If a > company is not interested any more to use the technology we adopted then we > don't close it as followes to them, IETF should be a leader in the world > not following a company/country policy/controllers. > > I hope our WG gets a good reason of such drop, and I hope our authors' > confirm their reactions. > > BEst Wishes, > > AB > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Robert Cragie <robert.cra...@gridmerge.com > > wrote: > >> As one of the original supporters, I have no concerns with this. >> >> Robert >> >> On 3 April 2017 at 02:16, Gabriel Montenegro < >> gabriel.montene...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> >>> >>> Making sure the list is aware of this: at the meeting in Chicago last >>> Wednesday we indicated that we intend to drop the MLE documents we had >>> adopted (in large part due to ZigBee’s Jupiter Mesh request) for >>> Experimental status. >>> >>> >>> >>> The documents are: >>> >>> - https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6lo/draft-ietf-6lo-mesh-link-estab >>> lishment/ >>> - https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6lo/draft-ietf-6lo-mle-hip-dex/ >>> >>> >>> >>> MLE even went through WG LC and received some comments, but there has >>> been no revision, and in the meantime, Jupiter Mesh is no longer depending >>> on it. Furthermore, the other potential interested party was the Thread >>> Group, but it became clear a few months ago that they do not depend on this >>> document either. >>> >>> >>> >>> The WG will drop the MLE documents by the end of this week (April 7) >>> unless we hear some new information. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> Gabriel, on behalf of 6lo chairs >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 6lo mailing list >>> 6lo@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lo mailing list >> 6lo@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >> >> >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
