Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Mark: > > I think we need a work item (usually implicit) around the concept of > improving existing WG RFCs. RFC 4944 can be improved in several aspects: >
> > - A major one is a better fit with ISA100.11a. Getting ISA100.11a to > conform to 6LoWPAN would be a major win, but is certainly not a given. > At the moment, the ISA100.11a documents expose discrepencies with RFC > 4944 that http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-6lowpan-hc resolve > for the most part. > Are the resolutions backwards compatible with RFC 4944? I'm eager to improve RFC 4944, but not eager to endorse changes that inhibit interoperability. > - The issue of fragmentation. Applying RFC 4944 over a multihop radio > mesh exposes the network to congestion collapse, as described in > http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-simple-fragment-rec > overy . I think that the WG should dedicate some bandwitdth to provide > additional functions that would improve the LoWPAN operation WRT flow > control and recovery of fragments. > Fragmentation, OK, but why is flow control a network layer issue rather than a transport layer issue? > Another aspect of ISA100.11a is the concept of a backbone router. It > would be appropriate that the IETF comes up with a proposal to implement > the concept in the IPv6 world. This partially falls under the first work > item on ND but might also include ND proxy over the backbone which is a > stretch to the work item. More in > http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router. > Well, don't we need to define what ND looks like on a lowpan before we decide whether it needs to be proxied or not? - Mark > What do you think? > > Pascal > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> > Behalf Of Mark Townsley > >> (townsley) >> Sent: jeudi 15 mai 2008 23:02 >> To: 6lowpan@ietf.org >> Subject: [6lowpan] New charter for 6lowpan >> >> >> I'd like to ask the group one final time for comments on the proposed >> new charter. I've also asked the ROLL WG chairs to comment. >> >> As I said before, soon after the format document was published, there >> > is > >> nothing stopping the WG from discussing and working on new and existing >> items at this time. In fact, activity helps us to decide what should be >> in and out of the charter. Please do not construe not having a charter >> in place as a reason not to update drafts, or discuss topics that need >> to be discussed. Just as when we have BoF's and mailing lists before >> creating a new WG, it is good to have WG meetings and on-lists >> discussions when creating new WG charters. >> >> - Mark >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
