Subject: [6lo] Adopting draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:56:51 -0400

All,
     Now that 6lo is an official WG, Ted and I would like to move
forward on closing the 6lowpan WG.  However, there is a draft
(draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle) that originated in 6lowpan, but has not been
published yet.  It currently sits in IESG Evaluation awaiting feedback
from the Bluetooth SIG.

     I would like to ask the 6lo group if anyone would have an objection
to me assigning draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle to the 6lo WG.  There are two
potential directions such an adoption could take.  The first is that
there are no issues with the draft as it relates to the Bluetooth SIG
and no work would be needed on the draft.  The other is that issues
arise and the IESG needs to send the draft back to the WG for
fixes/revisions.

     Can WG participants please respond negatively or positively to the
reassignment of draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle to the 6lo WG?  I will take
feedback until Oct. 28th, 2013.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:03:31 +0200

> feedback until Oct. 28th, 2013.

As WG chair of 6lowpan and participant of 6lo:

Yes, this is the right thing to do.
No further action will be needed until we hear from BT-SIG.
If changes are indeed required based on that input, the 6lo WG is the one to do the work.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Kerry Lynn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:05:42 -0400

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Brian Haberman
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> Hi Brian,

I agree this draft should move to 6lo.

There is a draft in 6man, draft-ietf-6man-6lobac-01, that is in a similar
state: awaiting standards action by the BACnet Committee of ASHRAE
(in progress).  Would you mind issuing a poll to see if we can get that
draft moved to 6lo as well?

Thanks, -K-

>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>
>

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:20:02 -0400

Hi Kerry,

> draft moved to 6lo as well?

I am curious as to your rationale for wanting to move the 6lobac draft
now.  In the case of the btle draft there is a desire to close a WG, but
there is no such need with 6man.

That being said, there will be a discussion in Vancouver over drafts
(the 6lobac one included) that could/should be moved to 6lo.  That is
highlighted in the draft version of the milestones that have been posted
to the mailing list.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Kerry Lynn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:27:03 -0400

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>wrote:

> I was unaware that such a discussion would take place.  I agree it would
be better to handle draft-ietf-6man-6lobac in that more general context.

-K-

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:18:06 +0000

Hi Brian, 6lo,

As 6lo participant, but more so as one of the authors of the draft in question, I'm fine for reassigning the draft to 6lo. I can post draft-ietf-6lo-btle-00 as soon as you ask.

I would also like to communicate to this WG that we have multiple active authors on the draft, and hence this work item would come with editors attached:-D

I am (and have been) actually working on this topic in BT SIG, and I believe it is highly likely that we need to touch the draft a bit more than just add the L2CAP channel identifier that IETF requested from BT SIG. However, the changes should be quite straightforward. After the BT SIG has advanced and needed changes are known, a decision needs to be made whether the document should drop back to WG(LC) or not. For now the IETF side of the actual work needs to stay in holding pattern waiting for BT SIG.

Best regards,

Teemu

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Brian Haberman
Sent: 14. lokakuuta 2013 19.57
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [6lo] Adopting draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle

All,
     Now that 6lo is an official WG, Ted and I would like to move forward on closing the 6lowpan WG.  However, there is a draft
(draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle) that originated in 6lowpan, but has not been published yet.  It currently sits in IESG Evaluation awaiting feedback from the Bluetooth SIG.

     I would like to ask the 6lo group if anyone would have an objection to me assigning draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle to the 6lo WG.  There are two potential directions such an adoption could take.  The first is that there are no issues with the draft as it relates to the Bluetooth SIG and no work would be needed on the draft.  The other is that issues arise and the IESG needs to send the draft back to the WG for fixes/revisions.

     Can WG participants please respond negatively or positively to the reassignment of draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle to the 6lo WG?  I will take feedback until Oct. 28th, 2013.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:38:41 -0700

Hi,

I am in favor of assigning the draft to 6lo.

Best regards
Ulrich

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:44:56 -0600

I think that this is a great idea and then lets get 6lowpan shut down - 
finally.

     Geoff Mulligan
     Presidential Innovation Fellow (on furlough)
     Cyber-physical Systems
     SmartAmerica Challenge

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:20:09 -0400

Hi Teemu,

> I am (and have been) actually working on this topic in BT SIG, and I believe it is highly likely that we need to touch the draft a bit more than just add the L2CAP channel identifier that IETF requ…

Thanks for the input.

First, I don't think we would not need to rename the draft.  That tends
to create some confusion for people.  Secondly, I would not see a reason
to change the editors of the draft, unless they made a request for a change.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 20:57:51 -0700

> feedback until Oct. 28th, 2013.

I think assigning future responsibility for draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle to the 6lo WG is a good idea and I support that action.

- Ralph

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:12:28 -0400

Hi Brian,

On 10/14/2013 12:56 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> reassignment of draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle to the 6lo WG?  I will
> take feedback until Oct. 28th, 2013.

I think it is the right thing to do. I am supportive of this
reassignment. I would prefer that the draft be renamed though, as the
tools will look for the wg moniker in the draft name in order for it
to show up under

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lo/

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:13:15 -0700

Hi Suresh,

one option would be to show also draft-ietf-6lowpan-* drafts on the
6lo WG page (thanks Carsten for that thought!). We have confirmed with
the webmaster that this is easily doable.

I'd suggest to wait until October 28, which is the final date that
Brian proposed for getting comments about asignment of
draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle to 6lo.

Best regards
Ulrich

---

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:25:18 +0000

Since the 6lowpan WG is shutting down, I support the idea of moving the bt-le document to 6lo WG.

-Samita

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [6lo] Adopting draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle

All,

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:33:04 +0000

Hi Kerry,

[SC>] Just to clarify the point:
           In Vancouver 6lo meeting, we plan to have a discussion on milestones where we can decide whether 6lobac should be handled in 6lo or should stay in 6man.

Thanks,
-Samita