Re: [6lowpan] A suggestion ... With regards to re-chartering

Hi Jonathan,

On 5/30/08 5:14 PM, "Jonathan Hui" <jhui@archrock.com> wrote:

> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> In support of most of this. For ND, we should add work on route-over
> as well, which I've committed to at the last WG meeting.

Yes we captured the notes :-)

 Architecture  
> is needed at this stage, and I'm willing to help drive it.

We do need a deep pass at the architecture doc. Let's work together off-line
on this.

RFC 4944  
> maintenance is needed as well.
> 
> I still think we need some document to define requirements for a L2
> meshing over 802.15.4 subnetwork. As I've said before, this could be a
> separate document or a part of the architecture document.

At the very least I'd say a separate document once we'll have an agreement
on whether we need L2 meshing work here.

Cheers.

JP.

> 
> I hope we can close on this quickly...
> 
> --
> Jonathan Hui
> 
> On May 30, 2008, at 5:48 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> 
>> Hi JP
>> 
>> Works with me. I went through the published work and the recent
>> thread "
>> New charter for 6lowpan".
>> My conclusion is as follows:
>> 
>> From the reworked charter, we should keep Work Items 1, 3, and 5 which
>> appear of foremost importance, drop 2 and 4 because pragmatically we
>> are
>> not advanced enough in these areas.
>> 
>> For 1) we have draft-chakrabarti-6lowpan-ipv6-nd that we can couple
>> with
>> draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router and we have most of the
>> content we
>> need to make a standard track doc.
>> 
>> For 3) we have draft-culler-6lowpan-architecture. It needs improvement
>> in particular in explaining route over vs. mesh under in details as we
>> currently discuss in the ML. Also mobility, backbone... but we have
>> people interested in the discussion (see current threads) so we should
>> work it out.
>> 
>> For 5) we have draft-daniel-6lowpan-security-analysis. We need to make
>> sure we have people committed to the effort but the current draft
>> looks
>> good already.
>> 
>> To those 3, I'd add:
>> 
>> Explore requirements and usages.
>> ---------------------------------
>> We have a draft, draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios that we can leverage.
>> I'd
>> add to it some words on existing standards that need or use 6LowPAN.
>> In
>> particular, we need to place ISA100 requirements in there to be able
>> to
>> better serve them later.
>> 
>> RFC 4944 maintenance and improvements
>> -------------------------------------
>> This should cover at least 6lowpan HC and fragment recovery efforts.
>> We
>> can discuss if we want ECN in that work item as well.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Pascal
>> ________________________________________
>> From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur)
>> Sent: vendredi 30 mai 2008 04:25
>> To: 6lowpan@ietf.org
>> Subject: [6lowpan] A suggestion ... With regards to re-chartering
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Just a suggestion for the chairs and the WG.
>> 
>> We have discussed many important items for 6lowpan.
>> 
>> For several of them, all important, I think that there was a clear
>> agreement: stateful header compression, security, Architecture ID,
>> fragmentation, ..... For other ones such as the "Mesh-under" and
>> "Route
>> over" discussion, there are diverging point of views.
>> 
>> So why not trying to quickly re-charter adding the items for which
>> there
>> is a consensus and continue the discussion on the open issues in the
>> meantime until we have an agreement at which point the WG may re-
>> charter
>> ?
>> 
>> As we all know, the WG has been fairly slow in term of progress and it
>> is I think now urgent to move on.
>> 
>> Thoughts ?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> JP.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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