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

["Don Sturek" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jonathan,

In ZigBee/HomePlug, we are working on a TRD to address the MRD and Use Cases
(have you also looked at the use cases?).   We hope to have a draft of the
TRD posted soon.

Don


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hui [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:32 AM
To: Carsten Bormann
Cc: Cullen Jennings; Don Sturek; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF


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