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

Hi Pascal,

We're in sync - addition comment in line.

On 5/30/08 2:48 PM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> 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.

Yes.

> 
> 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.

For the time being, let's try to re-charter and get it as a WG item.

Stating whether we need text on mesh-under versus router over for 6lowpan in
the architecture document is I think premature. IMO we first need to draw a
consensus on this topic in the WG and decide what to do from there (why not
documenting the decision in an informational ID (Chairs' call).

Also mobility, backbone... but we have
> people interested in the discussion (see current threads) so we should
> work it out.

Yes. + other items. The ID needs lots of work for sure. This was a very
first cut.

> 
> 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.

Yes.

> 
> 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.

Excellent idea, although I guess that you did not mean "requirement" but
applicability statement.

> 
> RFC 4944 maintenance and improvements
> -------------------------------------
> This should cover at least 6lowpan HC and fragment recovery efforts.

Probably tow different WG items but yes, agree!

 We
> can discuss if we want ECN in that work item as well.
> 
> What do you think?

Looks good to me.

Thanks.

JP.

> 
> 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