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

[Arjun Roychowdhury <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lisa, responses inlined.
regds
arjun


On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

>
> focused WG charter because this isn't "the charter for low-power IP
> applications protocols" it's merely *a* charter for a subset of those
> things.  We can't boil the ocean in one WG or even come to agreement
> on forming a WG if the scope is too big.  Besides considering that
> other WGs can tackle this larger space, consider that this WG could
> always go on to more complex use cases after solving simple ones.
>

ARC> I think this comment pretty much summarizes the difference of thought
between what I thought 6lowapp vs doing vs what you are describing. The
group name itself, "6lowapp" seems to specify it is a group to to specificy
low-power IP app protocols, and not a
subset. draft-bormann-6lowpan-6lowapp-problem-01 also seems to indicate this
group is dealing with the larger set.

So my comment would be if this is not so, then it needs to be explicitly
stated, otherwise the natural understanding is 6lowapp is the application
protocol group for 6lowpan devices - and what comes out of here, would
likely be adopted going forward in deployments,

I can respond to your other comments in more detail, but then again, if the
scope is going to be limited, then so be it.

-- 
Arjun Roychowdhury