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

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 29, 2009, at 13:25 , Arjun Roychowdhury wrote:

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

This is a good point about the name. When I started talking to people  
about the use cases and requirements for this WG, it became clear to  
me that we might want a name that was different than 6LoAPP. By the  
time I figured this out the name of the BOF had already been submitted  
in the the scheduling for IETF 76 so the BOF name was somewhat locked  
down but we really need to talk about the name of the WG. We would not  
want a name that caused people to daw the wrong conclusions.

So to comment on scope for a second