Re: [6lowpan] Use Cases Draft ready as WG document?

"Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <eunah.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 30 September 2008 06:17 UTC

Return-Path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-6lowpan-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC243A6981; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9553A6974 for <6lowpan@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G6NlOYJ3GxVR for <6lowpan@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.189]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B892F3A693D for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a6so1131651tib.25 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=MRUhieiAT/Uazm5WS5vQ8HXH+iHvzjJ5ifJxKuQ9xwI=; b=saaVBXDxXwRNralQlFnexgM+F14FzfHRCxhFj01iMmoCFNAesXRqBtzFB2RhmYDkfs oJX58LDcxwjkuI5GPSF3nMbPf2oLmVJ/mEuz1K/QMzk6vqq2uzZT8rOETaMRVAgfp52Q euAVgD2Bij1QAtYGneZlU6kCL/GkhAN8wA4w4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=WmlmTGhfAAHp2nWB9bwDVnJJT9ZWUfJCXh3nyoEGX8ahhvqea9TT6xdux6sCm0+mHA fS78uX+CNTT0wquD/mDEYrNnzkgl+Kb9oiULI6gl487o2cVkneiTgukx2LWqa0Iswkp/ Qplw6z9Fvhvr8qYe/1pszvlZunqD/I6UJnI84=
Received: by 10.110.46.3 with SMTP id t3mr8959449tit.33.1222755058179; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.110.57.20 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <77f1dba80809292310i2ff0d65ajeaeb2785d665c5d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:10:58 +0900
From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <eunah.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Kris Pister <pister@eecs.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: <48DBCDDB.1090700@eecs.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <99e1f5cb0809212052x66487ec4rf8f5b628fb3b2c10@mail.gmail.com> <48DBCDDB.1090700@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org, Geoff Mulligan <geoff@mulligan.com>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Use Cases Draft ready as WG document?
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org

Thank you for your support. :)

Regarding your question on FFDs and RFDs,
honestly we also see that the deployment cases use all FFDs, as far as
I got informed.
When you deploy the scenario, RFDs can be easily replaced to FFDs, but
not the other way around.
So, we thought that the scenario document is better not to rule out RFDs.
That's why we say "FFD or RFD" on every scenario figure.
I will read through the draft and change "FFD or RFD" if only 'RFD' is
used somewhere in the document.
Thanks!

-eunah

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Kris Pister <pister@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I'm in favor of adoption.
>
> There's a lot of good stuff in this document.  I think that it would be
> stronger if the scenarios were backed up by reference to actual deployments
> and/or data.
>
> Regarding the use of FFDs and RFDs: are we really wed to this as a core
> concept?  There may be some market segments that deploy this way, but there
> will certainly be many others in which all devices are battery powered and
> potential routers, and there is no concept of a reduced function device.
> It's important to design our protocols to be able to deal with different
> capabilities in different nodes, but the FFD/RFD distinction doesn't seem
> like the right one.  The document refers to battery powered FFDs - is that
> even defined at this point?
>
> ksjp
>
> Geoff Mulligan wrote:
>
> The document draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03 has been stable for some
> time now and this is a chartered item.
>
> Are you "in favor of" or "opposed to" adopting
> draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03.txt) as
> a 6lowpan Working Group Document?
>
>         Thanks,
>                 geoff
>
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>
>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan