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

[JP Vasseur <[e-mail]>]

Hi,


On 5/30/08 6:10 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Jonathan,
>   We have the ID for routing requirements.  Could this, or a portion of
> it, be the starting point for the L2 meshing (mehs under) requirements
> document.
> 
> I've been thinking about the Routing Requirements doc.  Should 6lowpan
> generate a ID that is a WG doc for use by ROLL as requirements for Route
> Over or should we (members of 6lowpan) just make sure that the current
> drafts within roll address our needs and concerns and the the Routing
> Requirements draft should instead be focused on mesh under.

I would without hesitation vote for the later and concentrate here on all
pretty urgent items.

Thanks.

JP.

> 
> geoff
> 
> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 08:14 -0700, Jonathan Hui 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. Architecture
>> is needed at this stage, and I'm willing to help drive it. 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.
>> 
>> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>> Behalf Of Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur)
>>> Sent: vendredi 30 mai 2008 04:25
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6lowpan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan