Hi Fred, Thanks for the note. We (the ZigBee team) will create a test report for what we have tested. Should have a draft soon (we will try to have something by the end of next week since we already have the test reports and just need to recast them as a draft and highlight the v6man draft tests)
Don -----Original Message----- From: Fred Baker [mailto:f...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:56 PM To: d.stu...@att.net Cc: 'Brian Haberman'; 'IPv6 WG Mailing List'; 'JP Vasseur' Subject: Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Don - see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1246.txt 1246 Experience with the OSPF Protocol. J. Moy. July 1991. (Format: TXT=70441, PS=141924, PDF=84633 bytes) (Also RFC1247, RFC1245) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) When we advance a routing protocol to Proposed Standard, for reasons related to ancient IESG history related to routing, we generally require a test report that shows interoperable implementations of the standard in question. As you can imagine, there was an NDA around the various events RFC 1246 reports - you won't find comments on the fact that Cisco's initial implementation of OSPF was a demon's delight, but you will find comments on who tested, and what the outcome of the testing was after we (yes, I was there, while working at ACC) all fixed our bugs. It would be very helpful if you could, with the implementors in question, filed a report on the testing. On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Don Sturek, chair for the ZigBee Alliance IPv6 standardization. > > We are using both the drafts (draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers and > draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header) for our interoperability testing. Here > is some background: > 1) We have 9 implementing companies all doing non-storing ROLL RPL using > downward routing > 2) We started interop testing in January 2010, meet every month and have > been testing downward routing for around 4 months > 3) We have not run into any issues (we have contact with Jonathan Hui and > JP so may have let them know of any issues but I don't recall them). I can > send you one of our recent interop reports under our ZigBee-IETF liaison > agreement if you are interested. > > We would be interested in seeing these drafts move forward in the WG. We > think they are essential to implementing non-storing ROLL RPL. By the way, > our target deployment is for Smart Metering applications in the home area > network. I added Fred Baker who chairs the Smart Power group who is aware > of our work. > > Sorry for not letting you know about this earlier. > > Best, > > Don Sturek > Chair, ZigBee Core Stack Working Group (responsible for standardization of > the "ZigBee IP") > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Brian Haberman > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:53 AM > To: IPv6 WG Mailing List > Subject: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls > > All, > Working group last calls ended 10 days ago for the two RPL-related > drafts (draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option and > draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header). By my count, each draft received > *1* comment. The chairs cannot and will not advance a draft to the IESG > with so little feedback. We request that WG participants review these > drafts and provide their feedback on them. > > Regards, > Brian & Bob > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
