Subject: Re: [Roll] whither draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 00:05:05 +0200

JP, this is an old thread.

Le 21/05/2010 12:25, JP Vasseur a écrit :
>
> On May 21, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
>
>> What ever happened to the protocol survey draft?
>>
>> Samita's message about the proliferation of drafts that atrophy got
>> me wondering about the protocol survey draft. This is a working
>> group document and is part of the milestones and charter of the
>> ROLL WG, but this draft has long since expired.
>>
>> It was supposed to be submitted to the IESG as an informational RFC
>> back in Feb 2009. It was last updated in April of 2009 so I would
>> think that it is complete. Why hasn't it been submitted to the
>> IESG? Given that it was THIS document that was the basis for the
>> decision to create a new routing protocol it is important that this
>> information is not lost.
>>
>> Did the WG ever even Last Call this document?
>
> The decision was made not to publish it as an RFC (see WG minutes),
> also in agreement with our AD.
>
> This will be reflected in the Milestone when we will work on them,
> with the WG.

The mails from WG members that I read do not seem to indicate silence 
about this draft.

Milestone, AD, RFC, minutes, WG are hard to corelate.

What happens to this draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07?

What happens to RPL meeting all of those ideals itself (attached email)?

I am asking because I have personally put much energy into discussing
this draft and I find very strange to drop a WG item.  I think there 
exist no IETF procedure to drop a WG item (it is the first time I see.)

IMHO,

Alex

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

Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-roll-rpl-11.txt> (RPL: IPv6 RoutingProtocol for Low power and Lossy Networks) to Proposed Standard
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: "ROLL WG" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:54:13 +0100

> That can still be corrected (revive
draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07).

That was dropped because some people had various issues with it.

That draft, very roughly speaking, said "none of these existing
protocols do what we want because they fail to meet the ideal we
have set for these various reasons". The issues were over whether
all such characteristions were accurate. (Note that absolute accuracy
may not be essential to make a WG decision, but a higher standard
is needed in an RFC. But I do not recall what the specific issues
were.)

What I'd find interesting is whether RPL meets all of those ideals
itself. (That's a genuine question, I don't know.)

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 00:36:13 +0200

Hi Alex,

You may want to refer to the minutes IETF-75 (July 2009):

2) WG Status (Chairs - 10 mn) [15]

Slides:	http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/roll-0.ppt
	(Unfortunately, no pdf version supplied)

	Rene Struik has joined as Technical advisor /
	security advisor - Welcome Rene

	First RFC 5548 out

	Various routing reqd. I-Ds still pending discusses 
	for a couple of documents, WG chairs iterating with
	the ADs to resolve issues.

	Protocol survey - all issues resolved, tremendous 
	amount of work, thanks to the team working on this. 
	Allowed rechartering, and served its purpose.
	No plan for publishing of this document. 

ROLL charter will be updated in a near future.

Thanks.

JP.

On Sep 18, 2010, at 12:05 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> The mails from WG members that I read do not seem to indicate silence about this draft.
> 
> this draft and I find very strange to drop a WG item.  I think there exist no IETF procedure to drop a WG item (it is the first time I see.)
> 
> IMHO,
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> JP.
>> 
>>> 
>>> geoff
>>> 
>>> 
> <Message joint.eml>_______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

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

Hi JP, thanks for identifying the proper minutes.  Minutes are logs of a
meeting reflect who said what.  Often authors of these statements
request clarifying the proper reproduction of their statements in the
minutes.

> You may want to refer to the minutes IETF-75 (July 2009):
[...]

> / //Protocol survey - all issues resolved, tremendous / / //amount of
> work, thanks to the team working on this. / / //Allowed rechartering,
> and served its purpose./ / //No plan for publishing of this document.
> /

Who said there is no plan for publishing this document?

(I know, it may look as lack of courtesy to ask "who".  It is not
courteus on my part to do so and I take the blame and the risk.  I
insist on this because I noticed in more RoLL minutes that the
statements are absolutely not attributed to persons; often statements
are entirely missing too; this is why it is hard to identify why things
happen the way they happen - in our case it is an invitation for
unilateral unaccounted for action.)

> ROLL charter will be updated in a near future.

Thanks for indication.  I hope this update process is more transparent
to avoid frustration.  I personally see this rechartering indication
first time now.

Alex

>>>> Samita's message about the proliferation of drafts that atrophy
>>>> got me wondering about the protocol survey draft. This is a
>>>> working group document and is part of the milestones and
>>>> charter of the ROLL WG, but this draft has long since expired.
>>>>
>>>> It was supposed to be submitted to the IESG as an informational
>>>> RFC back in Feb 2009. It was last updated in April of 2009 so I
>>>> would think that it is complete. Why hasn't it been submitted
>>>> to the IESG? Given that it was THIS document that was the basis
>>>> for the decision to create a new routing protocol it is
>>>> important that this information is not lost.
>>>>
>>> The decision was made not to publish it as an RFC (see WG
>>> minutes), also in agreement with our AD.
>>>
>>> This will be reflected in the Milestone when we will work on
>>> them, with the WG.
>>
>> I am asking because I have personally put much energy into
>> discussing this draft and I find very strange to drop a WG item. I
>>  think there exist no IETF procedure to drop a WG item (it is the
>> first time I see.)
>>
>> IMHO,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> JP.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ Roll mailing
>>>> list [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>>> _______________________________________________ Roll mailing
>>> list [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> Roll mailing list [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>