This is a very interesting idea.
I think there are some folks that might consider commission a technical
issue also.
geoff
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 17:05 +0900, Yong-Woon KIM wrote:
> Sure, it does.
>
> Schumacher's clarification seems good.
> But there is another viewpoint.
> "who should care for the network management?"
>
> >From sales and marketing points of view, here are two questions:
> what kinds of products should we develop?
> whom we should bring the products to for sales?
>
> The network management can be clarified into two viewpoints:
> operator-side and installer-side.
> NMS is an operator-side management tool and
> commissioning system is installer-side.
> That is, most sensor networks aren't installed by operators themselves but
> installation professionals such as SI(system integration) and
> NI(network integration) companies.
>
> So, the comissioning system has to focus on how to install sensor
> devices and sensor networks and how to manage them locally at installation
> sites.
> In order to support these points,
> it needs to support checkup and setup for physical component configuration
> (a device component cannot be detected), electrical ground, hardware profile,
> various configuration files, functional profiles, topology management,
> device management, etc.
>
> Consequently here are my summary:
> - comissioning seems proper as a business term, not a technology term.
> - bootstrapping seems a technology term and might be better for 6lowpan
> because
> it can help 6lowpn focus on technology issues including initial setup and
> installer-side network management.
> - network management should be clarified from operator's and installer's
> points of view.
> - two prospective products: NMS and commisioning system.
> - commissing system should include bootstrapping.
> - bootstrapping-itself product seems a non-sense in the context of my opinion.
>
> --
> Qkim
>
>
> > It depends on how to define each term in 6lowpan area.
> > Obviously, we should elaborate and clarify on each terms
> > if necessary...
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> > Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Schumacher Christian Peter Pii" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:12 PM
> > Subject: RE: [6lowpan] WG rechartering
> >
> >
> > I believe the two terms are related to a certain degree.
> > The difference could be that bootstrapping is for initial network setup
> > whereas commissioning is network management for the entire lifecycle of a
> > device.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geoff Mulligan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 7. februar 2007 18:30
> > To: Ki-Hyung Kim
> > Cc: 6lowpan
> > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] WG rechartering
> >
> > Are commissioning and bootstrapping the same? How do we define
> > bootstrapping?
> >
> > geoff
> >
> > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 11:28 +0900, Ki-Hyung Kim wrote:
> >> Bootstrapping is one of the important issues. I think commissioning
> >> might be more appropriate term which can include bootstrapping as a
> >> core protocol.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/7/07, Daniel Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Bootstrapping is one of important issues around 6lowpan,
> >> hence I agree with Samita's suggestion as well.
> >>
> >> Regarding 6lowpan mobility, MANEMO looks like a relevant
> >> place within IETF as of today, but INT AD's decision does
> >> not allow us to have a BOF in Prague at this stage.
> >>
> >> Anyhow, I am suggesting 6lowpan mobility for further study
> >> as one of rechartering items. As Samita pointed out, its
> >> problem statements are already available and we are in the
> >> progress of ellaborating on that.
> >>
> >> Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> >> Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Samita Chakrabarti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Cc: "6lowpan" <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:53 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] WG rechartering
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hi Geoff,
> >> >
> >> > The list looks good.
> >> >
> >> > Last time we also discussed a need for a document on
> >> boot-strapping.
> >> > Is it still on the agenda? Personally I prefer
> >> bootstrapping should be a
> >> > separate document; we also have to figure out the
> >> requirements for
> >> > bootstrapping in this space.
> >> >
> >> > The second point is on mobility analysis - recently with
> >> MANEMO (Network
> >> > mobility for MANET) discussion, some interesting points came
> >> out regarding
> >> > 6lowpan mobility. Daniel Park, Jim Bound brought this up
> >> and
> >> > we are working on updating
> >> > my expired draft on 6lowpan mobility requirements. So, may
> >> be we can keep
> >> > mobility item in the radar if not on the charter list for
> >> now.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > -Samita
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 2/6/07, Geoff Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Folks,
> >> >> We have reached a milestone. We have submitted the
> >> Problem Statement
> >> >> document and the Format Document to our AD for
> >> publication. We have
> >> >> completed the original charter of the WG.
> >> >>
> >> >> Mark will review the documents and then submit them for
> >> IETF LC (2
> >> >> weeks) and then IESG review and discussion, which will
> >> hopefully happen
> >> >> on the IESG telechat on March 8th.
> >> >>
> >> >> So now it is very important that we finalize our thoughts
> >> about
> >> >> rechartering the Working Group for new work, should we want
> >> to take on
> >> >> new work.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some of the items that people have indicated interest in
> >> working on:
> >> >> Neighbor Discovery and Secure Neighbor Discovery (proposed
> >> standard)
> >> >> Stateful header compression (informational)
> >> >> 6lowpan applications (informational)
> >> >> mesh routing (proposed standard)
> >> >> Security analysis (informational)
> >> >>
> >> >> If there are other ideas as to work the WG should be
> >> looking at, please
> >> >> send them to the list. If you think that we are finished,
> >> please send
> >> >> that to the list also.
> >> >>
> >> >> We plan to have a call with our AD next Monday the 12th and
> >> I would like
> >> >> to hear from the group before then.
> >> >>
> >> >> geoff
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> 6lowpan mailing list
> >> >> [email protected]
> >> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 6lowpan mailing list
> >> > [email protected]
> >> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 6lowpan mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ki-Hyung Kim (김기형, 金起亨)
> >> Associate Professor
> >> Division of Information and Computer Eng., Ajou University, Suwon,
> >> Korea 442-749
> >> Tel: +82-31-219-2433, Cel: +82-17-760-2551, Fax: +82-31-219-2433
> >> http://www.6lowpan.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6lowpan mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6lowpan mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6lowpan mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
