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

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: 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

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan