RE: [RSN] Update

I think the simplification to "Routing Issues for Low Power Wireless
Networks" is very good.  It defines the scope implicitly in a number of
useful ways. 
* There are a whole class of these devices where no routing is involved
(game controllers, remote controls, wireless keyboard and mouse, ear
pieces).
* It includes portions of sensor networks, embedded networks, automation,
but it not specifically limited to that.
* It includes 802.15.4 and links in a similar class.
* The technical challenges (loss, variation, multihop) are implied.
* It allows for both light footprint (microcontroller) and more capable
hosts.

So now we just need to tweak it to get a good acronym, since RILPWM doesn't
exactly role off the tongue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Townsley [mailto:townsley@cisco.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:17 PM
To: Timothy J. Salo
Cc: rsn@ietf.org; 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RSN] Update

Timothy J. Salo wrote:
> JP Vasseur wrote:
>> 2) New name
>> Although we called this initiative RSN: Routing for Sensor Networks, 
>> it does apply more generally to constrained nodes (Low Power) 
>> operating in Lossy Networks. Objects in general would typically be 
>> part of those networks. So from now on, let's rename this work
>> R2LN: "Routing issues for Low Power, Lossy Networks", and use that 
>> acronym in all IDs.
>
> I suggest that "Routing Issues in Low-Power Wireless Networks"
> might be more descriptive.
>
> "Wireless" implies "lossy".  "Wireless" also implies a variety of 
> other behaviors, such as a limited-range broadcast (usually), and a 
> variety of others.
>
> I doubt that we will spend any time at all thinking about low power 
> wired networks.
>
> "Low-Power" sounds better than "Resource-Constrained", although the 
> latter might be more descriptive.
>
> And finally, to do the job well, this group must look at more than 
> just routing issues (e.g., neighbor discovery and management in 
> low-power wireless networks).  We might consider:
This part should be part of the 6lowpan recharter. The idea amongst the ADs
has been to split off the routing portion of the work on low-power networks
to the routing area, and continue forward with work on ND, bootstrapping,
etc. within the int-area.
>
>   "Internetworking Issues in Low-Power Wireless Networks"
>
> or
>
>   "Internetworking Issues in Resource-Constrained Wireless Networks"
>
> or even
>
>   "Internetworking Issues in Resource-Constrained Networks" (I2RCN)
>
> One (non-trivial) advantage of "Internetworking" is that it helps 
> answer the question: Why should the IETF (e.g., rather than the IEEE) 
> be interested in this work?  (Assuming that we think about how 
> low-power wireless networks should be interconnected with the 
> Internet.)
I agree that this is an important topic that should be part of both
charters.

- Mark
>
> -tjs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RSN mailing list
> RSN@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
>

_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
RSN@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn

_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
RSN@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn