It was clear that items: 1(ND), 3(Architecture) and 5(Security) were
priority items. It was less clear to the three of us that use cases
were a priority item.
It sounds like we have people that would like to continue to work on the
use cases and that completing them in parallel to the other efforts
would be a "good thing".
What schedule do the authors anticipate completing the document?
geoff
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 16:06 +0200, Mark Townsley wrote:
> 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
