Geoff Mulligan wrote: > It didn't seem to be a priority item. > > Perhaps we should consider incorporating the Use Cases into the > architecture document. Whether the use-cases are in the arch document or separate is somewhat orthogonal to whether they are chartered work right now. > If not then I think once we complete the few > documents we should then revisit the use cases. > I a missing why writing down use-cases is not a good thing to do sooner rather than later. I don't think it should stop protocol work in its tracks, but I see no indication right now that it would. As long as the use-cases are considered informational and can run largely in parallel* to the normative work at this stage, I don't know why we wouldn't pursue it.
- Mark *If this were the very beginnings of 6lowpan, I would insist on use-cases to help drive requirements, architecture, and finally solution design. While we are somewhat past that stage, I do think they could still be very useful to ROLL, as well as going forward as we continue to debate the pros and cons of various optimizations. > geoff > > > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 10:49 +0900, Eunsook "Eunah" Kim wrote: > >> Geoff, >> >> 6LoWPAN use-case was always in the recharter items, and there was no >> objection on it. Any reason to take it out? >> Thanks for the good work. >> >> -eunah >> >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Geoff Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> After reviewing the comments on the list and talking with Carsten and >>> Mark, we have come up with the following text for the Charter. >>> >>> We hope (and think) that this reflects the input from the group and Mark >>> plans to take this to the IESG for rechartering approval. >>> >>> We've had some excellent discussion on a few topics and this is great. >>> There is no reason why we should stop the discussion and work while Mark >>> handles the rechartering. >>> >>> 1. I think that the work is proceeding on the Security Analysis document >>> 2. We have the current HC1G draft. The issue being discussed is the >>> "compression" of the UDP checksum and it's impact on the end-to-end >>> model. I would like to hear more input and discussion on this. Please >>> speak up if you have thoughts on this. >>> 3. We have some initial input on the Architecture document and I would >>> like to hear from anyone that would volunteer to continue to work on >>> this document. >>> >>> geoff >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
