Re: [RSN] Update

[JP Vasseur <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Jun 3, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:

> 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.

Indeed ... By the way this gives the opportunity to re-enforce the  
fact that this initiative deals with routing issues *only*.
If we need additional specifications for the routing that do not deal  
with pure routing issues, then we need to ask to 6lowpan indeed.

>>
>>   "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.)

Because I think that these devices will soon be part of the  
Internet ;-) Quite seriously.
And we need to keep the word Routing here.

> I agree that this is an important topic that should be part of both  
> charters.
>

Thanks.

JP.

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

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