Hi,
On 5/30/08 6:10 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonathan, > We have the ID for routing requirements. Could this, or a portion of > it, be the starting point for the L2 meshing (mehs under) requirements > document. > > I've been thinking about the Routing Requirements doc. Should 6lowpan > generate a ID that is a WG doc for use by ROLL as requirements for Route > Over or should we (members of 6lowpan) just make sure that the current > drafts within roll address our needs and concerns and the the Routing > Requirements draft should instead be focused on mesh under. I would without hesitation vote for the later and concentrate here on all pretty urgent items. Thanks. JP. > > geoff > > On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 08:14 -0700, Jonathan Hui wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> In support of most of this. For ND, we should add work on route-over >> as well, which I've committed to at the last WG meeting. Architecture >> is needed at this stage, and I'm willing to help drive it. RFC 4944 >> maintenance is needed as well. >> >> I still think we need some document to define requirements for a L2 >> meshing over 802.15.4 subnetwork. As I've said before, this could be a >> separate document or a part of the architecture document. >> >> I hope we can close on this quickly... >> >> -- >> Jonathan Hui >> >> On May 30, 2008, at 5:48 AM, 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
