Subject: [core] core-coap-10, coap-misc-18, and a new draft on congestion control principles

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:00:06 +0200

draft-ietf-core-coap-10, draft-bormann-coap-misc-18, and a new
draft-bormann-core-congestion-control-00 havee been posted.

This is a milestone on the road to fully resolving the WGLC comments.

Still to do are:

- Check coap-misc 2.1 (resolving #202), 3 (#214), and 6 (#201) and, if we
  like them, integrate all this text (and the appropriate parts of 7)
  into core-coap.

- Check core-congestion-control-00 and, if we like it, perform the
  changes indicated in the drafy in core-coap and try to resolve #215
  in the process.

- #241: We need to come to a conclusion as to what we do about the
   proxy-elective class of options, and if we need the additional bit
   for cache key indication.

- (authors:) complete more editorial comments.

Other discussion points:

- #230: Are we done with this one? (Last 2 comments on ticket.)

- #216 -- which scopes do we actually want to recommend to use?  Do we
   expect all CoAP nodes to listen to all scopes?

- Does core-congestion-control stay its own draft or do we integrate
  it as a "congestion considerations" section into core-coap?
  [This author would be happier to make this a stand-alone informational.]

- any work remaining on the packet size text?

- block, observe...

The usual delta URIs:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-core-coap-10.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bormann-coap-misc-18.txt
New:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-core-congestion-control-00

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:53:40 +0200

Here is something of an agenda for the APC today:

>  [This author would be happier to make this a stand-alone informational.]

2) How do we get progress on this one?

>   for cache key indication.

We cannot really discuss this potential change productively without an input document that shows at least one solution.
So how do we get that?

>   expect all CoAP nodes to listen to all scopes?

See also http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.7

> - any work remaining on the packet size text?

This is just one example of the ~ 90 unprocessed items.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:22:51 +0200

We had a pretty focused and productive discussion, leading to some action points for the authors, which still need to be written up (e.g., in the tickets).
For your planning: We are planning to do the next call 1000Z-1200Z on Thu, July 5th (just a little bit friendlier time for the Chinese participants...).

Grüße, Carsten