I basically agree with Pascal. I think that we have a good start on
items 1, 3 and 5. As for security we have a commitment from Shouichi
and Robert to take the draft from Daniel and complete it.
I think that we should move forward with HC1g as part of the 4944
improvement and maintenance.
geoff
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 14:48 +0200, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hi JP
>
> Works with me. I went through the published work and the recent thread "
> New charter for 6lowpan".
> My conclusion is as follows:
>
> >From the reworked charter, we should keep Work Items 1, 3, and 5 which
> appear of foremost importance, drop 2 and 4 because pragmatically we are
> not advanced enough in these areas.
>
> For 1) we have draft-chakrabarti-6lowpan-ipv6-nd that we can couple with
> draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router and we have most of the content we
> need to make a standard track doc.
>
> For 3) we have draft-culler-6lowpan-architecture. It needs improvement
> in particular in explaining route over vs. mesh under in details as we
> currently discuss in the ML. Also mobility, backbone... but we have
> people interested in the discussion (see current threads) so we should
> work it out.
>
> For 5) we have draft-daniel-6lowpan-security-analysis. We need to make
> sure we have people committed to the effort but the current draft looks
> good already.
>
> To those 3, I'd add:
>
> Explore requirements and usages.
> ---------------------------------
> We have a draft, draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios that we can leverage. I'd
> add to it some words on existing standards that need or use 6LowPAN. In
> particular, we need to place ISA100 requirements in there to be able to
> better serve them later.
>
> RFC 4944 maintenance and improvements
> -------------------------------------
> This should cover at least 6lowpan HC and fragment recovery efforts. We
> can discuss if we want ECN in that work item as well.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Pascal
> ________________________________________
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur)
> Sent: vendredi 30 mai 2008 04:25
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [6lowpan] A suggestion ... With regards to re-chartering
>
> Hi,
>
> Just a suggestion for the chairs and the WG.
>
> We have discussed many important items for 6lowpan.
>
> For several of them, all important, I think that there was a clear
> agreement: stateful header compression, security, Architecture ID,
> fragmentation, ..... For other ones such as the "Mesh-under" and "Route
> over" discussion, there are diverging point of views.
>
> So why not trying to quickly re-charter adding the items for which there
> is a consensus and continue the discussion on the open issues in the
> meantime until we have an agreement at which point the WG may re-charter
> ?
>
> As we all know, the WG has been fairly slow in term of progress and it
> is I think now urgent to move on.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
