[17:50:42] --- maeno has joined
[18:08:31] --- behcet has joined
[18:10:26] --- yowada has joined
[18:11:17] --- jishac has joined
[18:11:54] --- igarashi has joined
[18:12:10] --- ks has joined
[18:14:35] --- keyajima has joined
[18:14:43] --- Bob has joined
[18:14:45] --- ShoichiSakane has joined
[18:15:03] --- alfredprasad has joined
[18:15:04] --- gorryf has joined
[18:15:34] <gorryf> I'm trying to scribe notes on who is speaking to this WG - Gorry Fairhurst
[18:15:49] <gorryf> Carsten has bashed the Agenda - it is tight
[18:16:18] <gorryf> Carsten - Intro to 802.125.4
[18:16:54] --- kakima has joined
[18:17:02] <jishac> Are any electronic slides available?
[18:17:32] <jishac> and is (http://6lowpan.tzi.org/) the wiki of mention?
[18:17:57] --- washad has joined
[18:18:02] <gorryf> I can't see any slides on the proceedings site - I shall ask...
[18:18:28] <jishac> thanks
[18:19:30] <gorryf> Carsten says the slides are on the Wiki for the other presentations
[18:20:01] --- dthaler has joined
[18:21:13] <gorryf> Next: New Header Encoding Proposal (slides at http://6lowpan.tzi.org/)
[18:28:21] --- monden has joined
[18:37:14] <gorryf> Summary & Questions Now
[18:38:01] <gorryf> Floor question: Future extensibility - you may need to understand the length of the options
[18:38:34] <jishac> next header concept
[18:38:34] <gorryf> Ans: yes options may ned length, let's discuss
[18:39:55] <gorryf> Do we want other headers in 6lowpan? (1) No, define mesh, frag, etc (2) Allow optional extensions (with len) that could be ignored or (3) discard old packets - let's take this to the list
[18:41:19] <gorryf> Bob Hinden again: Current is a fixed length header proposal?
[18:41:28] <gorryf> Carsten: some are variable anyway
[18:42:57] <gorryf> New Q: (1) is this easier to parse (with despatch tables)? (2) let's keep functionality, new headers add flexibility - do we need more flexibility?
[18:43:30] <gorryf> Gabe Montenago: There's a tentative version on the wiki of this approach to look at...
[18:45:57] <gorryf> New protocol types could specify a len... etc
[18:46:28] <gorryf> Carsten: The protocol could add a tlv for new features (current is tlv-free)
[18:48:06] <gorryf> Bob: Do you know which things you have most of the time - this is much simpler, but less efficient. It saves bugs and potential failure modes, it gets wire benefit v. complexity. Use a simple header - e.g. one header.
[18:48:26] <gorryf> Carsten: space is restricted.
[18:48:39] <gorryf> Phil: Is there implied ordering?
[18:48:49] <jishac> length and type could be constrained to a "general extension" header... instead of putting such info into each type
[18:49:10] <jishac> that would make it possible to pass over unknown options
[18:49:15] <gorryf> - do you want me to relay your message to the room?
[18:49:24] <jishac> not necessarily
[18:49:44] <gorryf> I'd be happy to do, if you tag so I know...
[18:50:00] <gorryf> Carsten: Moving on to RISKS discussion
[18:51:40] --- Bob has left
[18:54:54] <gorryf> Success Factors: Implementation window is 2 months: (finish spec in a week) (need review by 22 Nov)
[18:55:36] <gorryf> Need 2 implementations within a month (need to find one more currently)
[18:55:53] <gorryf> WGLC scheduled for Dec 8th
[18:56:17] <gorryf> Discussion
[18:56:26] <gorryf> Question: Is the decision made?
[18:56:29] <gorryf> Chair: No
[18:56:56] <gorryf> Question: Are there other proposals - such as moving bits around in current proposal to improve parsing
[18:57:14] <gorryf> This one may be better...
[18:57:54] <jishac> ^ is that your take?
[18:57:58] <gorryf> Chair: This is not so broken that we are need new proposals - we received a plea to accept a single new proposal
[18:58:23] <gorryf> If you are unhappy or see issues say.......
[18:59:20] <gorryf> Question: New format has a lot of benefits (compactness, etc) - we need to look at these claims...
[19:00:46] <gorryf> Floor: We need to validate that this compactness is better, based on alignment (need to relook at current format again) - reordering of current could also gain, gains are not so significant.
[19:01:45] <gorryf> Eric Nordmark, Floor: Existing proposal, how would you handle new fields?
[19:01:59] <gorryf> Is there extensibility in current draft?
[19:02:08] <gorryf> Ans: We know how to do LSR
[19:02:19] <gorryf> <from Gabe>
[19:02:49] <gorryf> Chair: There is no extensibility.
[19:03:06] <gorryf> Bob: Has there been complaints from current implementors?
[19:03:14] --- kakima has left
[19:03:44] <gorryf> Gabe, Floor: Implementor feedback - my interpretation was that it could be done better
[19:04:07] <gorryf> Floor, Phil: I would love to get a student to write this - the timeframe is tight.
[19:04:20] <gorryf> Carsten: 6lowpan experience is helpful
[19:04:40] <gorryf> Phil: One month too little.. 6 weeks?
[19:04:48] <gorryf> Ans: I second this.
[19:05:12] <gorryf> I think next IETF is do-able, we could get real feedback.
[19:05:21] <gorryf> 3 months more likely
[19:05:35] <gorryf> Do we have 2 implementations of current?
[19:05:43] <gorryf> Carsten: we have 6
[19:06:16] <gorryf> Question, Floor: We should also be concerned for the long-term (think about IESG review)
[19:06:35] <gorryf> What is the decision?
[19:07:12] <gorryf> Carsten: We need to decide whether we spend the 2 months, and then re-evaluate before sending to the IESG
[19:07:27] <gorryf> If implementors say this is a disastour.
[19:07:57] <gorryf> Bob Hinden: I don't know that you can keep to the deadline, slip is easy
[19:08:15] <gorryf> -------------
[19:08:34] <gorryf> Carsten: summing-up
[19:09:35] <gorryf> Bob: define ordering and simple headers. Leave details of new headers later
[19:09:42] <gorryf> Times Up
[19:10:05] <gorryf> Humm on this decision: Should we allow 2 more months to examine and review our decision?
[19:10:16] <gorryf> Hummm for
[19:10:24] <gorryf> Small hum against
[19:10:24] --- yowada has left: Logged out
[19:10:26] --- maeno has left
[19:10:26] --- behcet has left
[19:10:28] * jishac humms
[19:10:31] <jishac> for
[19:10:33] <gorryf> END of meeting
[19:10:38] --- keyajima has left
[19:10:39] <jishac> audio is lagging :)
[19:10:46] <gorryf> Decision was that the proposal should be considered
[19:10:53] <jishac> ok
[19:10:54] <gorryf> Thanks & Bye
[19:10:55] <jishac> thanks
[19:11:03] <jishac> gorryf: thanks for scribing
[19:11:03] --- gorryf has left
[19:11:13] --- monden has left
[19:11:16] --- jishac has left
[19:11:54] --- washad has left: Computer went to sleep
[19:13:17] --- igarashi has left: Computer went to sleep
[19:13:18] --- ShoichiSakane has left
[19:13:47] --- ks has left
[19:29:39] --- alfredprasad has left
[19:45:09] --- dthaler has left
[19:54:06] --- alfredprasad has joined
[19:56:45] --- dthaler has joined
[19:58:05] --- alfredprasad has left
[21:05:19] --- dthaler has left