I would just like a date that we all feel comfortable putting in for the
completion and moving to the IESG.
geoff
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 19:52 +0200, JP Vasseur wrote:
> Hi Geoff,
>
>
> On 6/12/08 4:49 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Well hopefully you do not require to terminate the document before it
> becomes a WG item ;-) To answer your question, it is already the second
> revision, the third revision will be posted before Dublin and we'll be
> having a fairly stable ID.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>
> >
> > 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
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
