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

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

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?