Subject: [6lowpan] ND-10 Status

From: "Don Sturek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:45:12 -0700

I am sending this note on behalf of the ZigBee IP team to ask about the
status of ND-10.  Here is what we have planned:

1)       There is a ZigBee IP interop event scheduled for next week.  We
plan to have at least 5 implementations and to test ND-10.  

2)      We will create a report and send to the 6LowPAN reflector
highlighting any issues we see.

However, we would like to see some commitment on bringing this topic to
closure in the WG.

I have not seen too many e-mail threads on ND-10 other than the header
option ordering.  Are there other issues?  Assuming implementations go well,
what does everyone see the time to LC as?

Don

---

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:55:48 +0300

Don,

(editor hat on)

On Jun 25, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Don Sturek wrote:

> I am sending this note on behalf of the ZigBee IP team to ask about the status of ND-10.  Here is what we have planned:
> 1)       There is a ZigBee IP interop event scheduled for next week.  We plan to have at least 5 implementations and to test ND-10. 
> 2)      We will create a report and send to the 6LowPAN reflector highlighting any issues we see.

That will be a big help, we are ready to quickly discuss your feedback and see if any improvements are needed. If that report could come pretty quickly after/during the event then great (even just by e-mail). We are prepared to submit -11 of the draft by the July 12th cutoff. 

> However, we would like to see some commitment on bringing this topic to closure in the WG.
>  
> I have not seen too many e-mail threads on ND-10 other than the header option ordering.  Are there other issues?  Assuming implementations go well, what does everyone see the time to LC as?

We currently have only one minor ticket to add a reference, and we may extend the examples somewhat. Otherwise there are no other issues on the table right now.

(editor hat off)

Personally, I think this is ready for LC before Maastricht assuming we can close any issues from interop testing already in -11. 

Zach

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

-- 
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://zachshelby.org  - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet"
Mobile: +358 40 7796297

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:04:31 +0200

Hi Zach:

I understand that:

1) The ND registration mechanism is absolutely required for mesh under
because of the cheer cost of broadcast emulation. 
2) The registration is also much needed  in route over to enable the
redistribution of the host routes into the routing protocol
3) The current spec does well what it is expected to do, and we can
expect little improvement on the core design.

So I'll support the last call whenever it is called for. I'm sad this
did not happen 6-9 month ago.

I'll note that scalability requires coordination between LBRs, which btw
does not necessarily mean synchronization.  It is one thing to expect
that such coordination will come from other specs, it is another to
provision what's needed to make that happen in the current protocol. It
is not like we do not know what's needed. Coordination requires to
recognize fresh from stale information. The simple tool to do that is a
sequence number.

The sequence number, that was provided in earlier versions of the ND
spec,  is required to resolve movement from double registration in both
RPL and the backbone router spec. It makes more sense to me to have the
sequence number in the ARO right away than to have to make it an option
in case the network grows past what's acceptable without coordinated
LBRs.

What do you think?

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Zach Shelby
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 4:56 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] ND-10 Status
> 
> Don,
> 
> (editor hat on)
> 
> > 1)       There is a ZigBee IP interop event scheduled for next week.
We plan
> to have at least 5 implementations and to test ND-10.
highlighting
> any issues we see.
> 
> That will be a big help, we are ready to quickly discuss your feedback
and see
> if any improvements are needed. If that report could come pretty
quickly
> after/during the event then great (even just by e-mail). We are
prepared to
> submit -11 of the draft by the July 12th cutoff.
> 
> We currently have only one minor ticket to add a reference, and we may
> extend the examples somewhat. Otherwise there are no other issues on
the
> table right now.
> 
> (editor hat off)
> 
> Personally, I think this is ready for LC before Maastricht assuming we
can
> close any issues from interop testing already in -11.
> 
> Zach
> 
> >
> > Don
> >