Subject: [Roll] RPL-P2P - status & update

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:25:39 -0700

Hello folks,

I've been trying to follow the many mails exchanged as a consequence of the WGLC of RPL-P2P.

Given the volume of changes to the document, I would like to ask that - once the authors estimate that a version of the I-D folding in all proposed changes is ready - the WG be given another 1-2 weeks WGLC before bouncing it off to the ADs?

This just to ensure that the WG gets to give the final version a good review before seeing it off.

Thoughts?

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Heide Clausen
http://www.thomasclausen.org/

"Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to
 discuss it."
   -- Mitchell's Law of Committees

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:35:14 -0400

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]> writes:
    Thomas> I've been trying to follow the many mails exchanged as a
    Thomas> consequence of the WGLC of RPL-P2P. 

Yes, using a good threaded reader is a good idea.
The IETF lists are also http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.protocols.rpl
and you can access it via nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.protocols.rpl
with a usenet newsreader.

    Thomas> Given the volume of changes to the document, I would like to
    Thomas> ask that - once the authors estimate that a version of the
    Thomas> I-D folding in all proposed changes is ready - the WG be
    Thomas> given another 1-2 weeks WGLC before bouncing it off to the
    Thomas> ADs? 

I think that we will do this.
Once a new draft is complete, I will remind the list with a link to the
datatracker ID diff tool.

You aren't the only one who wants to read all the changes again.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:39:37 -0700

Lovely, thanks Michael!

Thomas

---

From: Mukul Goyal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:59:52 -0500 (CDT)

>You aren't the only one who wants to read all the changes again.

I just wanted to mention that the changes are not that many or substantial in spite of the mailing list traffic we managed to generate. Most changes are basically textual clarifications.

Thanks
Mukul 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Richardson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:35:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-P2P - status & update

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:03:21 +0200

Hi Thomas,

Absolutely, the plan was to run another incremental Last Call, on the new revision.

Cheers.

JP.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:16:54 +0200

Hi Thomas,

Clarifying a bit more … what I meant …

Plan is:
* Close on the last open ticket
* Authors will post a new revision of the document, possibly highlighting the changes
* Issue another WG LC to make sure that the WG is comfortable with the new revision

Thanks, have a good week-end.

JP.

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:21:00 -0700

Dear JP,

Sounds quite reasonable.

Have a pleasant weekend you too - I will be spending mine recovering from week-long meetings in the bay area...

Best,

Thomas

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:52:33 +0200

Hi:

For the changes I suggested, I certainly agree with Mukul. 

Those changes provide crisper definitions and clearer limitations, but
mostly should not impact an existing implementation - unless an
implementation already used the upper layer data delivery in which case
a few lines of code might need to be changed. 

Like others I wish to review the final text, in particular for the
things related to upper layer protocols. But the routing piece which is
core appeared sound already in the WLC version of the doc.

Cheers,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Mukul Goyal
Sent: vendredi 13 avril 2012 21:00
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-P2P - status & update

>You aren't the only one who wants to read all the changes again.

I just wanted to mention that the changes are not that many or
substantial in spite of the mailing list traffic we managed to generate.
Most changes are basically textual clarifications.

Thanks
Mukul 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Richardson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:35:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-P2P - status & update

Yes, using a good threaded reader is a good idea.
The IETF lists are also
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.protocols.rpl
and you can access it via
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.protocols.rpl
with a usenet newsreader.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |
firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net
architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device
driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.