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

[Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]>]

Hi Arjun,

As sponsoring Area Director, I've asked that the BOF discuss a more
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.

I mention this in response to your mail although others have been
leaning in both directions, because I can give specific examples:

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Arjun Roychowdhury
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> My comments:
> The charter seems to combine goals as well as architecture together in one
> go.

Yes, because WGs seem to need not only functional goals but also at
least an anchoring architecture to start from.  I've been involved in
many software projects, both internal and community (open source) and
while software projects seem to be able to decide on an architecture
starting from a blank page, WGs seem to have more difficulty.

>
> ARC> We are implicitly stating that devices in a lowpan will have simple
> management requirements (kind of like set/get mostly). I'd like to see this
> group also consider (in terms of usecases) what are the various control
> functions that are desirable, given an internet connect ecosystem? I don't
> think we should assume that just because most home control was mostly about
> simple on/off/read  till date, that is what we should architect for. It is a
> minimal requirement, but not complete by itself.

What would the WGs achievable objectives here be?  So far I can only
see "Write a requirements or use cases document for possible other
control functions".  Without a solid scope here, I don't think the WG
could take on more than that.

> ARC> I don't think HTTP to XX mapping should be assumed at this stage. HTTP
> may be a popular protocol, but there could be others. So a general goal of
> internet protocols to device control protocol mapping is more suitable

It is a popular protocol, and some groups specifically have
interoperability with HTTP as a deployment requirement, so perhaps
this is just the first.  It's definitely not the only.  The general
goal of mapping protocols is not, IMO, achievable at this point.  I
wouldn't object if the charter picked something other than HTTP that
was achievable, but I don't see how the WG could tackle "internet
protocols" as a class.

I do appreciate your input, but I wanted the chance to expose the
pressure I'm putting the BOF co-ordinators under to specify a small
set of documents and an achievable scope.  I hope this reassures you
that the IETF would not be saying no to a larger scope in the longer
run.

thanks,
Lisa Dusseault