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

RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

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

Request To Advance: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-01.txt

Jari Ralph, On behalf of the 6MAN WG, the chairs request the advancement of: Title : Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links Author(s) : M. Kohno, et al. Filename: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-01.txt Pages : 9

Re: Request To Advance: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-01.txt

Thanks. I will review it and move along. Jari Bob Hinden kirjoitti: Jari Ralph, On behalf of the 6MAN WG, the chairs request the advancement of: Title : Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links Author(s) : M. Kohno, et al. Filename:

RFC 4861: Multicast Router Advertisement

Dear members: I have a question about the Router Advertisement sending algorithm of RFC 4861. On page 49, it states: “A router might process Router Solicitations as follows: - Upon receipt of a Router Solicitation, compute a random delay within the range 0 through MAX_RA_DELAY_TIME. If the

I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al. Filename:

IPv6 Node Requirements Document

6man chairs: A new version of the node requirements document has been submitted. This one addresses all known outstanding issues. The authors believe it is ready for WGLC. There are a number of changes in the last two versions of the document. They include: 17. Appendix: Changes from -06 to

Re: RFC 4861: Multicast Router Advertisement

On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 20:34 +0100, Juan A. Ternero wrote: - If the router sent a multicast Router Advertisement (solicited or unsolicited) within the last MIN_DELAY_BETWEEN_RAS seconds, ...” The question is about the second paragraph: “within the last ...” When does the time start? Does it

Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

For my sins, I was the Gen-ART reviewer for the main RPL spec, so I was able to have a quick glance at these without being completely mystified. On 2010-12-17 02:53, Brian Haberman wrote: All, Working group last calls ended 10 days ago for the two RPL-related drafts

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

RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

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

Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

Cool On Dec 16, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Don Sturek wrote: 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

6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.txt

All, This message starts a 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing: Title : IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al. Filename: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.txt Pages : 26 Date: