Re: [RSN] Update

[Traian MUNTEAN <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
I have not yet contributed to the discussion but David's last comments seem to me quite correct.
I would also insist on the dynamic "adaptiveness" of such networks and associated routing issues, and this not only because this would simplify "the role off the tongue"! (could provide an acronym like RIALPoWN which could be by extension read: "real pawn"!! ...yet tedious!)
Best,
Traian

dculler wrote:

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:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:17 PM
To: Timothy J. Salo
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn" rel="nofollow">https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn

    

_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn" rel="nofollow">https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn



_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn" rel="nofollow">https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn

  

_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn