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

Is there a reason that this draft restricts itself to a subset of the 
currently defined PHYs in 802.15.4?
As written, it refers only to the DSSS PHYs. There are currently 2 
additional PHYs defined in the standard (802.15.4a-2007), and there are two 
more amendments nearing completion that define additional PHYs.  I don't see 
any applications in these scenarios that require this restriction. Asset 
tracking, for example, is a likely application of the UWB PHYs (due to 
precision ranging, thus location, capability :-).  The other PHYs have 
characteristics useful in some of these scenarios also. Is there a reason 
for limiting  LoWPAN application to specific PHYs or is this just out of 
date text?

Also, a typo in References [3]: "802.15.4-2006, October 2003"  of course 
15.4-2006 was not published in 2003 :0).  802.15.4-2006 alone is not the 
current version of the standard (802.15.4a-2007 was approved early 2007).  A 
safer thing is to site "802.15.4-2006 as amended" unless there is some 
reason to be restrictive (in which case that reason should be explained in 
the text).

-Ben

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: "Geoff Mulligan" <geoff@mulligan.com>; <6lowpan@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Use Cases Draft ready as WG document?

> Hi all,
>
> I am also in favor.
>
> Carles
>
>
>
>
>> Hi Geoff,
>>
>> As you mentioned, the Use Cases document has been stable for quite
>> some time, and it has sparked a lot of interest.
>> I am therefore "in favor of" Working Group adoption.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Dominik
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Geoff Mulligan <geoff@mulligan.com>
>> wrote:
>>> JP,
>>>   That was a mistake.  I followed it up with a message to the list
>>> asking
>>> for responses on whether the document should become a WG doc.
>>>
>>> Please folks on the 6lowpan list respond and let us know if you think
>>> the
>>> Use Case document is ready to become a WG draft.
>>>
>>>       geoff
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:08 AM, JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Geoff,
>>>>
>>>> In another email you wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "
>>>> Jonathan please submit your draft draft-hui-6lowpan-hc-01
>>>> Eunsook please also submit your draft draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03"
>>>>
>>>> Is the second ID adopted as a WG (since below you asked for feed-back)
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> JP.
>>>>
>>>> On 9/22/08 5:52 AM, "Geoff Mulligan" <geoff@mulligan.com> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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