Re: [smartpowerdir] Fwd: LWIG WG proposal

Hi Russ, Jari,

I believe this work is valuable and different IETF WGs can benefit from
the results. However, ...

although IETF working groups often report from implementation and
interoperability experiences it is not very common to develop a document
on "implementation techniques". I think the charter text should make it
clear why the development of such a document should be done at an SDO
like IETF.

People who propose this WG do not seem to be the main contributors and
we need to find some smart guys first with LW implementation experience.
I would like to see more willing contributors with experience before we
start the work.

It would be also interesting if the charter mentions 6LoWPAN (e.g.
"associated protocols such as 6LoWPAN").

Cheers,
Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: smartpowerdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smartpowerdir-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Russ Housley
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:27 AM
> To: IETF SmartPowerDir
> Subject: [smartpowerdir] Fwd: LWIG WG proposal
> 
> Please review the attached draft charter.  I'll provide any concerns
to
> the IESG.
> 
> Russ
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
> > Date: January 9, 2011 6:44:04 PM EST
> > To: IAB <iab@iab.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "ipdir@ietf.org"
> <ipdir@ietf.org>, TSV Dir <tsv-dir@ietf.org>, "'Cao,Zhen'"
> <caozhen@chinamobile.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> > Subject: LWIG WG proposal
> >
> > Secretary (Bcced),
> >
> > Please put this working group creation to the agenda of the next
IESG
> telechat:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > After thinking about the results of the LWIP BOF for a while and
> talking to various people, my proposal is to create a focused working
> group to produce one document. The key to the success of this effort
is
> recruiting the smart guys who have actually built some of the existing
> implementations. We are in talks with several such experts, though our
> exact recruitment ability is yet to be seen. I have Adam Dunkels from
> SICS (implementor of uIP) on board as an example, but many people have
> not responded to our e-mails yet. Here's a proposed charter. Comments
> appreciated.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG)
> >
> > Current Status: Proposed
> >
> > Chairs:
> >    TBD
> >
> > Internet Area Directors:
> >    Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
> >    Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
> >
> > Internet Area Advisor:
> >    Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
> >
> > Transport Area Advisor:
> >   TBD
> >
> > Mailing Lists:
> >    General Discussion: lwip@ietf.org
> >    To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
> >    Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lwip
> >
> > Description of Working Group:
> >
> > Communications technology is being embedded into our environment.
> Different types of devices in our buildings, vehicles, equipment and
> other objects have a need to communicate. It is expected that most of
> these devices employ the Internet Protocol suite. However, there is a
> lot of variation in the capabilities between different types of
> devices, and it is not always easy to embed all the necessary
features.
> The Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG) Working Group focuses
> on helping the implementors of the smallest devices. The goal is to be
> able to build minimal yet interoperable IP-capable devices for the
most
> constrained environments.
> >
> > Building a small implementation does not have to be hard. Many small
> devices use stripped down versions of general purpose operating
systems
> and their TCP/IP stacks. However, there are implementations that go
> even further in minimization and can exist in as few as a couple of
> kilobytes of code, as on some devices this level of optimization is
> necessary. Technical and cost considerations may limit the computing
> power, battery capacity, available memory, or communications bandwidth
> that can be provided. To overcome these limitations the implementors
> have to employ the right hardware and software mechanisms. For
> instance, certain types of memory management or even fixed memory
> allocation may be required. It is also useful to understand what is
> necessary from the point of view of the communications protocols and
> the application employing them. For instance, a device that only acts
> as a client or only requires one connection can simplify its TCP
> implementation.
> >
> > The purpose of the LWIG working group is to collect experiences from
> existing small IP stacks with regards to protocol implementation. The
> group shall focus only on techniques that have been used in actual
> implementations and do not impact interoperability with other devices.
> The techniques shall also not affect conformance to the relevant
> specifications. The output of this work is a document that describes
> implementation techniques for reducing complexity, memory footprint,
or
> power usage. The main focus is in the IPv4, IPv6, UDP, TCP, and
> associated protocols. This document would be helpful for the
> implementors of new devices or for the implementors of new general-
> purpose small IP stacks. It is also expected that the document
> increases our knowledge of what existing small implementations do, and
> helps in the further optimization of the existing implementations.
> >
> > Generic hardware design advice and software implementation
techniques
> are outside the scope of this work, as such expertise is not within
the
> IETF domain. The group shall also not develop any new protocols or
> protocol behavior modifications beyond what is already allowed by
> existing RFCs, because it is important to ensure that different types
> of devices can work together. The group shall not develop assumptions
> or profiles about the operating environment of the devices, because,
in
> general, it is not possible to guarantee any special configuration.
> >
> > Given that the group works on both IP and transport layer protocols
> it is necessary to ensure that expertise in both aspects is present in
> the group. Participation from the implementors of existing small IP
> stacks is also required.
> >
> > Milestones:
> >
> > February 2011   Design team of experts and a document editor
> recruited
> > March 2011       Working group chartered
> > August 2011       First version of the implementation guidance
> document submitted
> > March 2012      Submit the implementation guidance document to the
> IESG for publication as an Informational RFC
> >