Subject: [6lowpan] Timeline for 6LoWPAN ND resolution

From: "Don Sturek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:23:36 -0700

Hi Carsten and Geoff,

We had an interesting discussion today in Anaheim on 6LoWPAN Neighbor
Discovery (ND).  As you know this has been a longstanding open item.

We have some specific deadlines for the Smart Energy work.  Specifically, we
need resolution on the ND topic (with a final I-D generally agreed by the
WG) within a 2 month timeframe.  If we cannot achieve this in 6LoWPAN, then
our commercial alliance will need to create a commercial specification
around whatever is available and we believe could later map to an agreed
solution.  This is not optimal but in reality we simply cannot wait any
longer for closure on ND.

Could we ask for at least a finite decision on what exact parts of ND-08 or
ND-simple will be part of the next round of ND drafts?  Could we ask for an
expedited process in resolving this somehow?  Is there a way we could
contribute to the ND resolution through our interoperability testing for
Smart Energy if we end up moving forward before WG consensus?  

What I think we need is a schedule and some work assignments that would lead
to resolution on this topic.   There are several members of our group who
would be willing to contribute if there is a plan in place to close this
issue quickly.

Thanks,

Don Sturek

Chair, ZigBee Alliance Core Stack Working Group (representing ZigBee IP)

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:37:31 -0600

Don,
  This is great news.  If you guys have any experience during your
interops that could shed light on implementation issues or your members
that can provide real world experience that might enlighten the WG we
need that. I know that Erik and Zach would like the input.

As to committing to a time-line, I'm not sure that is possible in the
IETF.  Again, if there is someone from Zigbee that would commit to the
editor-ship of the ND draft, we can consider this to help expedite it.

It would be unfortunate if Zigbee had to choose an ND mechanism that
wasn't the solution coming from the IETf, but understandable that you
have time lines and commercial interests that need to be dealt with.

Personally I don't think that the ND-Simple draft is really that far
from a workable solution, but on this Carsten and I disagree.

Maybe some input from implementors in Zigbee would help.

	geoff

On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 18:23 -0700, Don Sturek wrote:
> We have some specific deadlines for the Smart Energy work.
> Specifically, we need resolution on the ND topic (with a final I-D
> generally agreed by the WG) within a 2 month timeframe.  If we cannot
> achieve this in 6LoWPAN, then our commercial alliance will need to
> create a commercial specification around whatever is available and we
> believe could later map to an agreed solution.  This is not optimal
> but in reality we simply cannot wait any longer for closure on ND.
> 
>  
> 
> Could we ask for at least a finite decision on what exact parts of
> ND-08 or ND-simple will be part of the next round of ND drafts?  Could
> we ask for an expedited process in resolving this somehow?  Is there a
> way we could contribute to the ND resolution through our
> interoperability testing for Smart Energy if we end up moving forward
> before WG consensus?  
> 
>  
> 
> What I think we need is a schedule and some work assignments that
> would lead to resolution on this topic.   There are several members of
> our group who would be willing to contribute if there is a plan in
> place to close this issue quickly.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  
> 
> Don Sturek
>

---

From: "Don Sturek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:38:23 -0700

Hi Geoff,

As I understand the background on ND, there has been work going for 2 years with no resolution.  I note below where you say you and Carsten (the two co-chairs) don't agree on what it would take to resolve this.

I question if this is really following any IETF process.  Isn't it really up to the participants in the group and not the co-chairs to determine whether the ND drafts on the table address the requirements for 6LoWPAN?

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Mulligan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Carsten Bormann; [email-masked]; 'Ralph Droms'; 'JP Vasseur'
Subject: Re: Timeline for 6LoWPAN ND resolution

Don,

	geoff

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:18:54 -0700

> I question if this is really following any IETF process.  Isn't it really up to the participants in the group and not the co-chairs to determine whether the ND drafts on the table address the requi…

Indeed it is.

<WG-chair hat off>

What I told Geoff is just my personal view (and the authors happen to agree that nd-simple is missing a couple of things from ND-08 that are consensus).

But the good news is that the authors of the two drafts have already started the work on the next version, to get the simplicity aspects of nd-simple and have the completeness we do need from ND-08.

Attending the WG meeting must have seemed a grim experience for people who haven't followed the details of the ND process in the last two years.  Actually, I'm quite happy with the emerging consensus and I think the way forward is now very clear.  The authors think they will be done with ND-09 within two weeks after the IETF.  The process will be starting from a clean slate, taking in text from ND-08 and nd-simple as needed.  There will be an outline this week.  The process for the next two weeks will then be driven by tickets on the WG Trac.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "Don Sturek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:33:36 -0700

Fantastic news Carsten if indeed the consensus of the two ND proposals will
meet the requirements for 6LoWPAN.  

If the draft is coming soon (in the next couple of weeks) let's wait to see
what it says.  If the work is going to take a little longer, I would suggest
some e-mail traffic from the group to see what the "criteria for success"
might look like in terms of topics we are expecting to see addressed.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Geoff Mulligan'; [email-masked]; 'Ralph Droms'; 'JP Vasseur'
Subject: Re: Timeline for 6LoWPAN ND resolution

On Mar 24, 2010, at 07:38, Don Sturek wrote:

> Hi Geoff,
> 
> As I understand the background on ND, there has been work going for 2
years with no resolution.  I note below where you say you and Carsten (the
two co-chairs) don't agree on what it would take to resolve this.
> 
> I question if this is really following any IETF process.  Isn't it really
up to the participants in the group and not the co-chairs to determine
whether the ND drafts on the table address the requirements for 6LoWPAN?

Indeed it is.

<WG-chair hat off>

What I told Geoff is just my personal view (and the authors happen to agree
that nd-simple is missing a couple of things from ND-08 that are consensus).

But the good news is that the authors of the two drafts have already started
the work on the next version, to get the simplicity aspects of nd-simple and
have the completeness we do need from ND-08.

Attending the WG meeting must have seemed a grim experience for people who
haven't followed the details of the ND process in the last two years.
Actually, I'm quite happy with the emerging consensus and I think the way
forward is now very clear.  The authors think they will be done with ND-09
within two weeks after the IETF.  The process will be starting from a clean
slate, taking in text from ND-08 and nd-simple as needed.  There will be an
outline this week.  The process for the next two weeks will then be driven
by tickets on the WG Trac.

Gruesse, Carsten