We (the ZigBee Alliance) will request a port number to use with MLE.
After discussion this week at the ZigBee Alliance members meeting, we will
follow the AD sponsored draft route. We will elicit input from as many
related IETF WG's who might be interested in MLE> We look forward to
comments fro
> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen writes:
Thomas> If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do
Thomas> honestly not know what the proper way of shaping the process
Thomas> / forum for discussions / framing of the specification would
Thomas> be, but I would hope that
Dear Richard,
Thank you for the clarifications, I appreciate it.
I look forward to the next version, which I will endeavor to review carefully
with what you state below in mind.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Heide Clausen
http://www.thomasclausen.org/
"Any simple problem can be made insoluble if e
Hi Thomas,
As Don said, the intent is that MLE not be tied to RPL and that
it be submitted as an AD-sponsored submission. I have spoken
with Ralph about it on several occasions. We both would have
preferred that MLE go through a WG, but there doesn't seem to be
an appropriate one. If MLE were i
Hi Don,
On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek 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
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 wrote:
>Hi Don,
>
>
>On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek wrote:
>
>> H
Hi Thomas,
I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard:
That is from memory, am I correct?)
Don
On 6/15/12 9:28 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" wrote:
>
>On 15 Jun 2012, at 15:57, Don Sturek wrote:
>
>> Hi Thomas (and Michael),
>>
>> I don't agree that MLE targets o
On 15 Jun 2012, at 15:57, Don Sturek 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-stor
On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen 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 esta
Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not immediately clear to me how
tied MLE should be to RPL - if it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link
establishment, then it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not
be tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& convent
Hi Michael,
It is the process needed to make additions to ICMP. We have multiple
implementers using the existing MLE draft so we also are trying to get
closure if we can since we plan to being commercial certification shortly.
To us, MLE provides the features we need and there is ownership that
> "Don" == Don Sturek writes:
Don> We believe UDP makes the most sense as a transport for MLE. ICMP will
Don> take entirely too long and will end up being a maintenance issue if
there
Don> are additional information exchanges needed using MLE.
I can't see a difference myself in
Hi Thomas,
Sorry it was late when I wrote that response :-)
We debated a long time on MLE. We knew we needed a one hop information
exchange between nodes to help with 6LoWPAN ND (eg exchange long address
information), link quality (eg. for creation and maintenance of symmetric
links), etc. We
Hi Carsten,
I answered a similar note privately from Michael. Let me share part of
that here for everyone:
.. (part of note to Michael deleted)...
We are just sharing our experience of now 2 years of monthly interops
using 6LoWPAN, ROLL RPL, PANA and now MLE. Many of us participat
Hi Michael,
We believe UDP makes the most sense as a transport for MLE. ICMP will
take entirely too long and will end up being a maintenance issue if there
are additional information exchanges needed using MLE.
While the ZigBee Alliance is using ROLL RPL and 6LoWPAN, the information
exchanged in
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 ex
> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen 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 large
> we don't have time for all these changes
It's likely that the next question that will come up is:
Should this be published as an informational RFC called "ZigBee's MLE protocol"
because the protocol is no longer really meant to be modified in the process or
should it be pursued as a standards
All sounds fantastic but we don't have time for all these changes so will
opt to use MLE as written using UDP ( at least for our application)
Don
On 6/14/12 1:13 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote:
>
>In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that
> MLE messages are sen
19 matches
Mail list logo
