Hi Mark,
On 5/20/08 8:24 AM, "Mark Townsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan Hui wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark, thanks for reigniting the discussion on this.
>>
>> - Improving RFC 4944 is an important one. The biggest issue I have
>> with it in the near term is that the IPv6 header compression does not
>> allow compression of non-link-local addresses, which is an important
>> case if we truly intend to do inter-networking. This is the most
>> important point of the 6lopwan-hc draft. Backwards compatibility is
>> supported by utilizing new dispatch values. But it's important to
>> consider what the implementation costs are of supporting the
>> LOWPAN_HC1 defined in RFC 4944, especially since 6lowpan-hc does cover
>> most of the useful cases in LOWPAN_HC1. Something for the WG to
>> discuss...
> Yes, in is incumbent on us as the IETF to ensure that the 6lowpan can
> ultimately be a part of the wider Internet.
Exactly. A key WG item.
>>
>> - To your point on ND, this is precisely why the architecture draft is
>> so important. We haven't given it as much attention lately, but it
>> will help resolve the question your raise and many other questions in
>> the future. For example, the architecture draft identifies two modes
>> of operation: mesh-under and route-over. Both of which may require
>> different ND mechanisms. This doesn't apply to just ND, but may apply
>> questions of fragmentation, header compression, security, etc.
> I worry about the under/over debate. It seems that with all the effort
> and enthusiasm in ROLL, we might be well-served at the moment by
> focusing on helping them be successful with route-over than spending too
> much of our time on route-under.
Can't agree more.
>>
>> - I hesitate a bit that we suggest possible solutions to ND in the
>> charter ("reusing the 802.15.4 network structure (use the
>> coordinators)") especially since the definition of such link
>> mechanisms are still in motion within the IEEE. It seems more
>> productive to me if we can develop mechanisms that are less dependent
>> on the specific structure of 802.15.4 mechanisms.
> I agree that we should develop mechanisms that could work generically
> whenever possible.
>
> - Mark
>>
>> Rest of the charter looks good to me.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Hui
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 16, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>>
>>> 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: [email protected]
>>>>> 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
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
