Hi Michael, Thanks for share of Carpenter's draft. I fully agree with the content of it after a quick read. I think it's for all adoption process, not only for this adoption call. I believe 6lo Chairs' professional actions.
About the technical related concern: > One concern that I have with NSA is that I think the network can get > renumbered whenever there are new devices. Can you explain a little more on how this problem happens? Cheers, Guangpeng > -----Original Message----- > From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 4:14 AM > To: Alexander Pelov <a...@ackl.io>; 6lo <6lo@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of > draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 > > > Alexander Pelov <a...@ackl.io> wrote: > > I'd be happy to discuss specific scenarios/use-cases that come from a > > real-world need. > > > In any case, I think these are required before accepting the draft as a > > WG item. > > Well, there really aren't any formal requirements to adopt a draft as a WG > item. It's a decision reserved for the WG chairs to make in any way that > they see fit. Typically, they observe a consensus that the WG wants to work on > it. > That means that the WG is willing to spend agenda time on the document. > > But, over time the Adoption call has become overly bureaucratic due to the > belief that documents that are adopted MUST be published. This has > resulted in the adoption call being overly litigated. > > See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-gendispatch-rfc7221bis/ > for some opinions and of course RFC7221. > > However, like you, I am not feeling very confident that there are real use > cases, > and that this document it not simply the result of researchers who looked at > RFC6550, did a page count and decided it must be hard and that it shouldn't > be so difficult, so let's invent something new, even though we have no actual > use case. > That is the research institute way, where success is measured in papers > published, rather than products shipped. > > This is not the IETF way. The IETF way is to see that there is a problem that > can not be solved with existing technology, write a paper about the failures > of > the existing things, having tried them, and then do some experiments to see > what else could be done. Write some (running) code, do experiments and > then report on it in an attempt to get rough consensus. > > I've actually seriously considered the datacenter situation. It's a core use > for > ANIMA's ACP. I can unicast some presentations, but I'm not sure that I want > the links public yet. > > I like the idea of an incrementally deployable swarm of management devices > powered by the network. I have been thinking about how to do PoE in/out > in a daisy chain/tree. I hadn't thought about using the 100baseT1 that the > automotive industry likes. > > One concern that I have with NSA is that I think the network can get > renumbered whenever there are new devices. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT > consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
