The IETF-69 BOF status page <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki>
says that the RSN BoF will not meet until the Vanvouver IETF, but
that the problem space will be presented in the Routing Area Working
Group meeting (17:40 Tuesday) or equivalent venue.
Has a venue for the RSN non-BOF discussion been established yet? It
doesn't seem to be on the current rtgwg agenda.
This discussion, where ever it occurs, may be an excellent opportunity
(although not the only one) to discuss whether separate link-local and
network routing protocols are likely to be required for low-power
wireless networks.
My [current] view is that link-local and network routing protocols
adapted to low-power wireless network have a lot more in common than
they do differences. They seem to share a lot of hard problems (e.g.,
support for a class of nodes that is severely resource constrained,
support for nodes that sleep most of the time, the lack of an efficient
link-wide multicast/broadcast capability, etc.). In contrast, the
scope of the routing protocol (link-local versus network-wide) seems
like a comparatively minor variation, even if the link-local version
ends up using link-layer addresses (of course, I continue to argue
that in 6lowpan networks the mapping between link-layer addresses
and network-addresses should be trivial, which would seem to
moot this argument).
At any rate, at this time I am strongly opposed any of the two, largely
independent efforts to develop/adapt a routing protocol for low-power
wireless networks (6lowpan and rsn) being described as standards-track.
I believe that both of these efforts should be classified as
"experimental" until either they are converged, or a strong case has
been made that two, independent routing protocols are really required.
-tjs
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
