Re: [6lowpan] Use Cases Draft ready as WG document?

I'm in favor of adoption.

There's a lot of good stuff in this document.  I think that it would be 
stronger if the scenarios were backed up by reference to actual 
deployments and/or data.

Regarding the use of FFDs and RFDs: are we really wed to this as a core 
concept?  There may be some market segments that deploy this way, but 
there will certainly be many others in which all devices are battery 
powered and potential routers, and there is no concept of a reduced 
function device.  It's important to design our protocols to be able to 
deal with different capabilities in different nodes, but the FFD/RFD 
distinction doesn't seem like the right one.  The document refers to 
battery powered FFDs - is that even defined at this point?

ksjp

Geoff Mulligan wrote:
> The document draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03 has been stable for some
> time now and this is a chartered item.
>
> Are you "in favor of" or "opposed to" adopting
> draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03.txt) 
> as a 6lowpan Working Group Document?
>
>         Thanks,
>                 geoff
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>   