Hi Thomas, Fair enough. I do know we avoided making the draft RPL specific so look forward to hearing from the intarea ADs on where we should direct the draft.
Don Sent from T-Mobile G2 with Google Thomas Heide Clausen <i...@thomasclausen.org> wrote: >Hi Don, > > >On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek <d.stu...@att.net> wrote: > >> Hi Thomas, >> >> I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard: >> That is from memory, am I correct?) >> > >If that's the case, then I think that it needs to be scoped carefully: the >design and direction of the work required would (IMO) be very different if it >aims narrowly for RPL, or broadly for "MESH", and the text in the >specification should be very very clear as to this. > >If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do honestly not know what >the proper way of shaping the process / forum for discussions / framing of the >specification would be, but I would hope that an AD could chirp in (as you say >INT, have you discussed this with Brian or Ralph, and could you or either of >them let us know?) > >Note, I am not taking position for or against MLE at all - I just want to >ensure that a specification published be scoped so as to not be constraining >for domains for which it hasn't been discussed. > >Thomas > > >> Don >> >> >> >> On 6/15/12 9:28 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" <i...@thomasclausen.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 15 Jun 2012, at 15:57, Don Sturek <d.stu...@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Thomas (and Michael), >>>> >>>> I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL. The draft was written >>>> carefully >>>> to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL. That said, the deployment we >>>> are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL >>>> (non-storing) >>>> and I think many others will find the information exchanged between >>>> neighbors using MLE as useful. >>>> >>>> Don >>>> >>> >>> Hi Don, >>> >>> Note that I was replying to Michael's suggestions that MLE be married to >>> RPL. >>> >>> If you think it's not, then MLE should neither be developed in ROLL nor >>> be constrained by RPL code-points, messages or principles. >>> >>> >>> Thomas >>> >>>> On 6/15/12 6:15 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" <i...@thomasclausen.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen <i...@thomasclausen.org> writes: >>>>>> Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not >>>>>> Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if >>>>>> Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then >>>>>> Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be >>>>>> Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& >>>>>> Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas, you will note that: >>>>>> 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push >>>>>> back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a >>>>>> type/code. >>>>>> 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such >>>>> that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context >>>>> (special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and >>>>> specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment. >>>>> >>>>>> I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. >>>>> >>>>> I don't. >>>>> >>>>> Thomas >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works >>>>>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
