Re: [6lowpan] LLN roadmap documents: more missing pieces

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Wed, 13 June 2012 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2122821F863B; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qTZ74X55YNwX; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0968921F8610; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so345989vcq.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=J6m1Ds8JEbRcuJ8d879X3N5LU9WaBYrmLnOadsrUndU=; b=vLNFQEMvdC5UpD/BIdbHlmyTY6dwU7SUoj8vXYWR6RYyEuk5ivOYuqAWyiTdLfFB8y 1p0cQBxRhoXuF5D+rYUrOZFYWuFBwkFuYgSoD0bWBhYLeq0tYB4XnvdlIwPWUurO1h0s GT3FsTjzHRWRVJARJ8PumFZ0c+KHoxfky/HdMKE5ET0Hs/Q1zSvf39Te6yfTrc3v/0i8 H4qpbCHaNu5oTPY0zO40Nrxo4fp/t2fiLY4wCPyIsGEtPteGeaHpIs9kbOxobq2jwwMs DxPciQOIv5JU2fJy6kpOW0tXlXLghgXsK3ezH908/eYC2FaRH8IB0N6JB9OX2YS0DKwj oSkg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.33.37 with SMTP id o5mr14118018vdi.86.1339593515469; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.98.77 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <21763.1339529946@marajade.sandelman.ca>
References: <21763.1339529946@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:18:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ88Knt4CZ9JzkS39_=GLuy7rq_kFjY63Zv_t-rJd0vO7kg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307ac163a20b2604c25a6b5f
Cc: roll@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] LLN roadmap documents: more missing pieces
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:18:37 -0000

Hi Michael, Don, and all,

>What Carsten said was that some kind of roadmap was necessary.
I agree with Mr.Carsten,

>I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan.
IMHO, it belongs to 6lowpan WG first, and it MAY be for ROLL as well,
overall, I think the WG AD can give us the best feedback and suggestion.

>For sure, I don't think 6LoWPAN is the right
>place since this protocol can work over mesh networks
>that are not necessarily employing 6LoWPAN.

if the protocol can work else than 6LoWPAN, then
IMHO we should let each group face its use-case problems,
not to give a protocol that works in many conditions to
only one WG or two. Each WG SHOULD look at its purpose case
for any particular protocol (as needed to be used is such area).

>the ZigBee Core Stack working group

I am looking for the group, but not found,
this group is not an IETF group yet !

I don't see the IETF has a cooperation with Zigbee standards. If I am
mistaken
please inform me, IMO we should not depend on the Zigbee-WG, until it
becomes IETF WG,

Therefore, the work you pointed to, should be considered by both 6LoWPAN
and ROLL.

Regards

Abdussalam Baryun,
University of Glaorgan, UK.
===============================================

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>wrote;wrote:

>
> In a private (IM) chat between Carsten Bormann and I, we realized that
> there
> was prescious little consensus about what building blocks will be used
> where.
>
> For instance, I have assumed that a ROLL RPL network would not need
> the ND parts of 6lowpan-ND, only the DAD parts (if DAD was important).
>
> That ND was unnecessary in for RPL nodes as the DAOs and DIOs served the
> same purpose.  This surprised some others.  What Carsten said was that
> some kind of roadmap was necessary.
>
> In another hallway conversation at Paris, I came to understand that for
> layer-2==Zigbee, that on Zigbee Controllers would ever need to run RPL,
> and that the regular nodes (such as light switches, forgive me, I do not
> recall their Zigbee name), would only communicate with a controller.
>
> This in contrast to what I know the home automation/P2P people are
> doing.
>
> Finally, I wanted to bring your attention to
>  draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt
>
> which I'm told 6man is supposed to consider.
> On some networks you can not send the DAOs or NDs out until you do this.
>
> I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>
>