Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
charter-ietf-roll-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-03-29
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder from Alvaro Retana |
2016-12-16
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-05.txt |
2016-12-16
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved from Internal review |
2016-12-16
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the charter |
2016-12-16
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Ready w/o external review" ballot |
2016-12-16
|
04-09 | Cindy Morgan | WG action text was changed |
2016-12-16
|
04-09 | Cindy Morgan | WG action text was changed |
2016-12-16
|
04-09 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04-09.txt |
2016-12-16
|
04-08 | Cindy Morgan | Added charter milestone "Recharter WG or close", due September 2018 |
2016-12-16
|
04-08 | Cindy Morgan | Added charter milestone "Initial submission of a solution to the problems due to the use of No-Path DAO Messages to the IESG ", due July … Added charter milestone "Initial submission of a solution to the problems due to the use of No-Path DAO Messages to the IESG ", due July 2018 |
2016-12-16
|
04-08 | Cindy Morgan | Added charter milestone "Initial submission of a proposal to augment DIS flags and options to the IESG ", due November 2017 |
2016-12-16
|
04-08 | Cindy Morgan | Added charter milestone "Initial submission of a reactive P2P route discovery mechanism based on AODV-RPL protocol to the IESG", due November 2017 |
2016-12-16
|
04-08 | Cindy Morgan | Added charter milestone "Initial submission of a Forwarder Selection Protocol for MPL to the IESG", due July 2017 |
2016-12-16
|
04-08 | Cindy Morgan | Added charter milestone "Initial submission of a proposal for Source-Route Multicast for RPL to the IESG", due July 2017 |
2016-12-16
|
04-08 | Cindy Morgan | Added charter milestone "Initial submission of a root initiated routing state in RPL to the IESG", due March 2017 |
2016-12-16
|
04-08 | Cindy Morgan | Added charter milestone "Initial submission of a YANG model for MPL to the IESG", due March 2017 |
2016-12-16
|
04-08 | Cindy Morgan | Added charter milestone "Initial Submission of a proposal with uses cases for RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation to the IESG", due January 2017 |
2016-12-15
|
04-08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-12-15
|
04-08 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04-08.txt |
2016-12-15
|
04-07 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04-07.txt |
2016-12-15
|
04-06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-12-15
|
04-06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I have one non-blocking question for the IESG and WG chairs... The charter continues to say "The Working Group will pay particular attention … [Ballot comment] I have one non-blocking question for the IESG and WG chairs... The charter continues to say "The Working Group will pay particular attention to routing security..." How do we think that's going? I'm not sure that it's going that well - we seem to have a history where ROLL documents arrive at the IESG lacking security analysis. I don't think that's because folks are bad or lazy, but it's maybe more down to people assuming that security is someone else's problem (e.g. will be handled by layer 2, or will be part of some applicability statement, or will be handled by some RPL security document etc...) Anyway, now that we're re-chartering, maybe it's a good time to review how we've been doing on this, given the history and see if there's anything we could do to avoid problems arising for future ROLL documents. (I don't have any specific suggestion for what to do, I just wanted to see if a discussion of this might be useful.) |
2016-12-15
|
04-06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-12-14
|
04-06 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-12-14
|
04-06 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] I agree with Mirja's comment. Perhaps describing them as a WG draft based on .... ? |
2016-12-14
|
04-06 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-12-14
|
04-06 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-12-14
|
04-06 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-12-14
|
04-06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-12-13
|
04-06 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] Re: ROLL will coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas that focus on constrained networks and/or constrained nodes. It might be … [Ballot comment] Re: ROLL will coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas that focus on constrained networks and/or constrained nodes. It might be worthwhile adding the following INT working groups to the list for co-ordination. 6tisch: very closely related because of the extensive use of RPL as well as the OFs ipwave: as we discussed during chartering of ipwave, there might be use cases that require either co-ordination and/or routing expertise in the future. roll might be an appropriate contact point |
2016-12-13
|
04-06 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-12-13
|
04-06 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] This charter looks fine to me, modulo a few nits I wondered about. Perhaps "self routing configuration" might be clearer as "routing self-configuration"? … [Ballot comment] This charter looks fine to me, modulo a few nits I wondered about. Perhaps "self routing configuration" might be clearer as "routing self-configuration"? I was expecting "It will also need to consider the transport characteristic the routing protocol messages will experience" to refer to characteristics, plural. But I wonder if the sentence would be clearer as "The workng group will consider the transport characteristics routing protocol messages will experience". I'm sure "Additional protocol elements to reduce packet size" is correct, but it seems counter-intuitive. Is there a better way to say what you mean? Is "the draft about when to use RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation Draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo" an Applicability Statement, or did this mean something else? But I see that Mirja had a question about the use of draft names that haven't been adopted. Perhaps it's worth a pass substituting clearer descriptions for draft names? |
2016-12-13
|
04-06 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-12-13
|
04-06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] One more or less editorial comment on the milestones: Saying something like "Initial submission of draft-name-xy-..." seems wrong given these drafts have not … [Ballot comment] One more or less editorial comment on the milestones: Saying something like "Initial submission of draft-name-xy-..." seems wrong given these drafts have not been adopted as wg items yet. |
2016-12-13
|
04-06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-12-10
|
04-06 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-02
|
04-06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-12-02
|
04-06 | Alvaro Retana | WG action text was changed |
2016-12-02
|
04-06 | Alvaro Retana | WG review text was changed |
2016-12-02
|
04-06 | Alvaro Retana | WG review text was changed |
2016-12-02
|
04-06 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Ready w/o external review" ballot |
2016-12-02
|
04-06 | Alvaro Retana | State changed to Internal review from Informal IESG review |
2016-12-02
|
04-06 | Alvaro Retana | Telechat date has been changed to 2016-12-15 from 2015-04-23 |
2016-12-02
|
04-06 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04-06.txt |
2016-12-01
|
04-05 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04-05.txt |
2016-12-01
|
04-04 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04-04.txt |
2016-11-30
|
04-03 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04-03.txt |
2016-11-30
|
04-02 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04-02.txt |
2016-11-30
|
04-01 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04-01.txt |
2016-11-30
|
04-00 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to none from "Rene Struik" <rstruik@certicom.com> |
2016-11-30
|
04-00 | Alvaro Retana | State changed to Informal IESG review from Approved |
2016-11-30
|
04-00 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04-00.txt |
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Rene Struik" , "Michael Richardson" , "Alvaro Retana" , "Ines Robles" to "Rene Struik" |
2015-04-24
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-04.txt |
2015-04-24
|
03-03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved from IESG review |
2015-04-24
|
03-03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the charter |
2015-04-24
|
03-03 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-04-24
|
03-03 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Ready for external review" ballot |
2015-04-24
|
03-03 | Cindy Morgan | WG action text was changed |
2015-04-24
|
03-03 | Cindy Morgan | New version to fix line breaks |
2015-04-24
|
03-03 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-03-03.txt |
2015-04-24
|
03-02 | Cindy Morgan | WG action text was changed |
2015-04-23
|
03-02 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-03-02.txt |
2015-04-23
|
03-01 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Given this text: "It will also need to consider the transport characteristic the routing protocol messages will experience." you might consider adding a … [Ballot comment] Given this text: "It will also need to consider the transport characteristic the routing protocol messages will experience." you might consider adding a sentence about liaising with TSVWG on this (so the working group knows where to ask questions while considering). |
2015-04-23
|
03-01 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-04-23
|
03-01 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-04-23
|
03-01 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-04-22
|
03-01 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-04-22
|
03-01 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the statement saying the WG will pay attention to routing security. |
2015-04-22
|
03-01 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-04-22
|
03-01 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-04-22
|
03-01 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-04-21
|
03-01 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-04-21
|
03-01 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-04-21
|
03-01 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-04-21
|
03-01 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-04-21
|
03-01 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-04-21
|
03-01 | Alvaro Retana | External review concluded with no comments. |
2015-04-21
|
03-01 | Alvaro Retana | State changed to IESG review from External review |
2015-04-15
|
03-01 | Alvaro Retana | Added charter milestone "Evaluate WG progress, recharter or close", due November 2015 |
2015-04-15
|
03-01 | Alvaro Retana | |
2015-04-15
|
03-01 | Alvaro Retana | Added charter milestone "Submit draft about when to use RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation to the IESG.", due August 2015 |
2015-04-10
|
03-01 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date has been changed to 2015-04-23 from 2015-04-09 |
2015-04-10
|
03-01 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to External review from Internal review |
2015-04-10
|
03-01 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2015-04-10
|
03-00 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2015-04-09
|
03-01 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-03-01.txt |
2015-04-09
|
03-00 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] This sentence seems complex: "Existing routing protocols such as OSPF, IS-IS, AODV, and OLSR have been evaluated by the working group and have … [Ballot comment] This sentence seems complex: "Existing routing protocols such as OSPF, IS-IS, AODV, and OLSR have been evaluated by the working group and have in their current form been found to not satisfy all of these specific routing requirements." Would it be clearer to say "The working group has evaluated the existing routing protocols OSPF, IS-IS, AODV, and OLSR, and these protocols do not satisfy all of these specific routing requirements without changes." But do the right thing ... |
2015-04-09
|
03-00 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-04-09
|
03-00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] I agree with Barry's comments on the last paragraph's phrasing. It is currently not understandable. |
2015-04-09
|
03-00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-04-09
|
03-00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-04-08
|
03-00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-04-08
|
03-00 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I agree with Barry's comments about work items vs documents. |
2015-04-08
|
03-00 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-04-08
|
03-00 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-04-08
|
03-00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-04-08
|
03-00 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-04-07
|
03-00 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] I agree with Barry's comments and am pleased that he made them so I don't have to. |
2015-04-07
|
03-00 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-04-07
|
03-00 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-04-06
|
03-00 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-04-05
|
03-00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] No objections to this recharter -- just a couple of comments: 1. I think this paragraph needs some editing; if I may suggest" … [Ballot comment] No objections to this recharter -- just a couple of comments: 1. I think this paragraph needs some editing; if I may suggest" OLD ROLL is in charge to the maintenance of RPL and protocols developed by the Working Group such as RPL and MPL, previous approval by AD/IESG of each new work proposed. NEW ROLL is responsible for maintenance of the protocols that is has developed, including RPL and MPL. AD approval is required for each new work item that is proposed. END 2. In general, I have a strong preference for leaving the division of work into specific documents for the milestones, and to keep the charter for specification of the *work*, without saying how that splits into documents. Suppose, for example, that the working group should decide that the two work items that are now listed really belong in one document? Or that there's really a third document hiding in there somewhere. So why not this?: OLD Work Items: - A document detailing when to use RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation. - A document detailing how to compress RFC6553, RFC6554 and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer context. NEW Work Items: - Details about when to use RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation. - Details about how to compress RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer context. END |
2015-04-05
|
03-00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-04-05
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-04-05
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | WG action text was changed |
2015-04-05
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | WG review text was changed |
2015-04-05
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Ready for external review" ballot |
2015-04-05
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | State changed to Internal review from Informal IESG review |
2015-04-04
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09 |
2015-04-04
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | WG action text was changed |
2015-04-04
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | WG review text was changed |
2015-04-04
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | The roll working group completed all of its previous work items (modulo the final publication of a couple of documents). The recharter adds 2 new … The roll working group completed all of its previous work items (modulo the final publication of a couple of documents). The recharter adds 2 new work items that have been extensively discussed in the WG. It also explicitly indicates that roll is responsible for RPL/MPL. |
2015-04-04
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | State changed to Informal IESG review from Approved |
2015-04-04
|
03-00 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-03-00.txt |
2015-04-04
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to "Rene Struik" <rstruik@certicom.com>, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+nomcom@sandelman.ca>, "Alvaro Retana" <aretana@cisco.com>, "Ines Robles" <maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com> |
2015-04-04
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2009-08-29
|
03 | (System) | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-03.txt |
2009-08-29
|
02 | (System) | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-02.txt |
2008-02-11
|
01 | (System) | New version available: charter-ietf-roll-01.txt |