Subject: [Roll] My statements in the minutes of the last RoLL meeting in Maastricht

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:36:26 +0200

Hi RoLL,

Let me clarify what I said during the last meeting in Maastricht.  I
believe this is not reflected in the official minutes.

> Q. when will V11 be posted?]

I think that Q. is myself.  However, I don't think  I asked only when
will V11 be posted.  I rather asked whether V11 is under discussion or not.

> A. Today or tomorrow.
>
> David> Going forward, we are NOT raising new issues. There may be
> editorial corrections.

> Question (?): could you please share some documents, publications on
>  the mechanisms used in RPL on the mailing list?

I wonder who asked this?  And I think the question was more about RPL
motivating documents, and from a commercial perspective, documents we
could reuse outside IETF.  This is vague recollection on my side.  I am
wondering who asked this, for my own information.

This is Question that I agree with.

> Answer: sure.

I wonder who said sure?  If I knew then I could approach that person and
gently remind it would be interesting to actually send these documents.
  This is again just gentle approaching.  If I had the names in the
minutes I could do that.

> 5) The Trickle Algorithm - draft-levis-roll-trickle-02  (Phil - 5mn)
> [160] Quick update on the changes in -02. Currently in LC. JP> ID is
> a normative reference in RPL core spec (thus we have a downref).
> Discussion on ID status

I was part of that discussion.  At some point I said that there are at
least two ways of solving the issue, one being to set the RPL status to
something else than Proposed Standards.  That remark was heard because
some people laughed.  However that remark is not reflected in the  minutes.

(yes, email discussion followed publicly on the mailing list and we
clarify and agreed on the intended status of this draft, but minutes are
absent about this discussion).

> JP> Will come back to the list to consider status change
> (informational to standard track)

Yes, this happened.

> Discussion on complexity

I was part of this discussion.  Actually I was not the only one saying
the text is complex.  Somebody else too said it actually first, then I
followed.  That makes 2 statements about complexity.

> Answer: many implementations in the field, takes very limited
> resources. Thomas CLausen: We have an implementation of RPL. Works
> fine with trickle just took a few days of coding.

Yes, Thomas did say that implementation worked fine, although I don't
remember him saying just a few days of coding.  It may be so.

> Overall discussion. More discussion to take place on the mailing
> list.

YEs, it so happened.  There is no indication in the minutes that the
meeting was adjourned, and the initially planned second meeting is not
to take place.  The only indication of this happening is is a verbal
statement by Chair at the mic seeing "see you in Beijing" which is fine,
a smart person could conclude the second meeting is cancelled.  However,
a public announcement on the mic saying "2nd meeting cancelled" and
minutes saying so would be probably better.

Again, this is simple clarification not any unpolite intention on my side.

Alex