I started to think about the working group charter, (a topic that appears to have drifted off into the ether since the IETF meeting).
I suggest replacing the first three paragraphs of the current working group charter, (i.e., everything down to "The required work includes ...") <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/6lowpan-charter.html> with the following: - - - - - - The IP over IEEE 802.15.4 Working Group will develop an architecture, protocols, and other technologies that will interconnect IEEE 802.15.4 networks with IPv4 and IPv6 networks. The Working Group will demonstrate independent, interoperable implementations of these standards. IEEE 802.15.4 wireless personal-area networks, (wireless PANs), are dramatically different than the environments in which IP is traditionally deployed. o Many nodes in wireless PANs are severely resource-constrained. Often, these nodes will use eight-bit processors with only a few tens-of-kilobytes of program storage and a few kilobytes of temporary storage. o Many wireless PAN nodes are powered by batteries. As such, each node is able to transmit only a relatively fixed number of bits over its lifetime. The cost of unnecessary network overhead is much higher in battery-powered wireless PANs, because it directly reduces the lifetime of the network. - - - - - - - - A few comments about why I chose the language I did: o As a matter of personal style, I made the language more direct and eliminated a fair amount of verbiage that didn't seem to directly support our cause. o I more explicitly mentioned IEEE 802.15.4. It appears to me that our focus doesn't include any other wireless PAN technology. Yes, our solution should provide a good model for other technologies, but I haven't seen anyone thinking about anything other than 802.15.4. If I'm wrong, someone should say something. o I wanted to remind us that we are, in fact, developing an architecture for wireless PAN/IP interconnections. We are doing this because we largely don't have any models upon which to build. Our current approach is to distribute these architectural design decisions throughout a number of documents, so it is useful to remember that they should cumulatively create a complete, consistent architecture. (My thoughts on the need for an architecture document are left as an exercise for the reader...) o I described our objective as "interconnecting" wireless PANs and IP networks, rather than "running IP over" wireless PANs. I think that the former may provide a stronger motivation for why this work is important. o I believe that we really must develop a solution that gracefully interconnects with both IPv4 and IPv6 networks. Note that this language doesn't specify how this will be done, just that we have to ensure that it works. We may decide to use one or more existing IPv4/IPv6 transition strategies, but we shouldn't just assume that at least one will magically work and ensure interoperability without any thought on our part. o I wanted us to remember that we aren't done until we can demonstrate two independent, interoperable implementations. Of course, from my perspective, these implementations ought to be complete systems, not just bits and pieces, (e.g., a format implementation, a neighbor discovery implementation, etc.). Yes, we all agree that the rest of the charter needs to be revised, but I don't have any proposed language for the rest of the charter (yet). And finally, I don't claim that my suggested language is right, just that we ought to be thinking about this. More free advice from, -tjs _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
