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

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