Hi Jonathan,
On 5/30/08 5:14 PM, "Jonathan Hui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Yes we captured the notes :-) Architecture > is needed at this stage, and I'm willing to help drive it. We do need a deep pass at the architecture doc. Let's work together off-line on this. 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. At the very least I'd say a separate document once we'll have an agreement on whether we need L2 meshing work here. Cheers. JP. > > 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
