Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

So trying to get specific advice about how to edit stuff here ...

So Jonathan sounds like you would like the list of existing use case /  
requirements document added to the charter as input to the WG and and  
also an explicit list of applications the WG will consider. That seems  
well worth trying.

Can you and other folks on the email list help

1) list the documents we can start with

2) list the applications or subsets of applications we should start  
with in the first phrase. Once we have a list we can decide if we need  
to prioritize are argue stuff in or out.

Thanks Cullen

On Oct 30, 2009, at 2:32 , Jonathan Hui wrote:

>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> On Oct 30, 2009, at 12:33 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
>> Back to the application requirements: I do agree we should focus on  
>> a small number of specific areas of application, at least for  
>> making sure we have thought through some specific examples for each  
>> in detail.  I think it would be useful if we called them out  
>> explicitly in the charter.  Right now I'm seeing a lot of interest  
>> in 6lowapp from Energy (SE V2 etc.) and building automation (which  
>> may or may not include home automation).  The charter does identify  
>> light switches, temp sensors, power meters, HVAC systems, and door  
>> locks as specific items that we will look at; so maybe we should be  
>> a bit more specific and identify the communication relationships we  
>> are addressing (and add light fixtures, plug-in vehicles and  
>> washing machines in the process).
>
> It certainly would have helped me if the charter would have been  
> more precise about what applications or subsets of applications we  
> are trying to address.  Without that knowledge, its hard to say  
> whether or not we have the proper requirements written anywhere.   
> BTW, I don't think the ZigBee/Homeplug MRD is sufficient in itself.   
> Is the TRD available?
>
> Given the application(s), it would be even better if somewhere we  
> indicated what functionality we plan to develop first.  Are we only  
> addressing manipulation of attributes that are relatively small in  
> size?  Are the most important profiles to get done first power,  
> light, light switch, and temp?
>
> In the end, if we are to take knowledge of the application  
> requirements for granted, the charter should be precise about what  
> we are addressing.  It's good to see that we are in line here.
>
>> Gruesse, Carsten
>>
>> PS.: I wrote more on the rationale for trying not to get stuck in a  
>> requirements mire in
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowapp/current/msg00038.html
>
>
> I do prefer your suggested terminology of "objectives" vs.  
> "requirements".
>
> --
> Jonathan Hui
>