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

[Jukka Manner <[e-mail]>]

My main point was that if you read the charter text as it is written, it 
seems to imply that the work will be something new, and not necessarily 
targeted to sensor networks, but more generic.

I would have put into the charter something that directly ties the WG to 
existing work, e.g.

"It is not the intention of 6lowapp to work on new transport and routing 
solutions [for sensor networks or whatever constraint environments]. The 
work is specifically tied to and intended to be layered on top of 
existing work done in the 6lowpan and Roll working groups, to name a few."

cheers,
Jukka

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> On Oct 29, 2009, at 8:20 , Jukka Manner wrote:
> 
>> 1. This seems to indicate that 6lowapp will not be tied to any 
>> existing work, it will work on its own goals, but in collaboration 
>> with others (which is somewhat open as what it means). I would have 
>> expected that 6lowapp would specifically look at existing work in 
>> related WGs and see how build on top of that.
> 
> My mistake - I did not mean to imply that it was not layered on top of 
> closely related existing work. I think most people assumed that this 
> would run on top of a LoPAN but it seemed they also wanted it to be able 
> to run on top of a other things including a normal IP LAN and WAN. 
> Clearly this is all about same use cases as 6LoPAN and ties closing with 
> 6LoPAN and ROLL as well as work going on at many other SDOs. However, 
> I'm not sure what needs to be said. Are WG drafts with use case / 
> requirements from other WG that we should be referencing? Give me ideas 
> on what things you were thinking here. Clearly the IESG would not be 
> keen on chartering a new WG to do something another WG was already 
> charted to do - repeating work in two places seldom ends well :-) Can 
> you suggest some specific text for the charter that you think would have 
> fairly wide consent and captures what you are looking for here?
> 
>