Dear Richard, Thank you for the clarifications, I appreciate it.
I look forward to the next version, which I will endeavor to review carefully with what you state below in mind. Best, Thomas -- Thomas Heide Clausen http://www.thomasclausen.org/ "Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to discuss it." -- Mitchell's Law of Committees On 15 Jun 2012, at 19:38, Richard Kelsey <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > As Don said, the intent is that MLE not be tied to RPL and that > it be submitted as an AD-sponsored submission. I have spoken > with Ralph about it on several occasions. We both would have > preferred that MLE go through a WG, but there doesn't seem to be > an appropriate one. If MLE were intended for use exclusively > with ROLL (or MANET or 6LoWPAN), this wouldn't be an issue. > > Ralph and I discussed it again yesterday, and decided to go with > an AD-sponsored submission. My plan was to add some clarifications > to the draft before announcing it to the usual suspects (6lowpan, > MANET, ROLL). This thread jumped the gun by a day or two. > > -Richard Kelsey > >> From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:59:18 +0200 >> >> Hi Don, >> >> On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard: >>> That is from memory, am I correct?) >>> >> >> If that's the case, then I think that it needs to be scoped >> carefully: the design and direction of the work required would >> (IMO) be very different if it aims narrowly for RPL, or broadly >> for "MESH", and the text in the specification should be very >> very clear as to this. >> >> If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do honestly >> not know what the proper way of shaping the process / forum for >> discussions / framing of the specification would be, but I >> would hope that an AD could chirp in (as you say INT, have you >> discussed this with Brian or Ralph, and could you or either of >> them let us know?) >> >> Note, I am not taking position for or against MLE at all - I >> just want to ensure that a specification published be scoped so >> as to not be constraining for domains for which it hasn't been >> discussed. >> >> Thomas _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
