Hi Geoff,
On 6/12/08 7:59 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please do not misunderstand my/our intentions. In reading the various > messages about the rechartering, it did not appear to us as though the > use-case was a priority item - not that it was not useful or would not > be useful, just not a priority. That was the only reason it was left > off of the charter. It was very clear that ND, Arch, and Security were > at the top of the list. And they are on the top of the list, no question about this. > > I am not at all against continuing with the use-case ID in parallel to > the rest of the documents. I think that it is and could be useful. > > I will add it back to charter text, but please let me know a date that > we can plan to have the ID completed. Sure, what about Dec 2008 for IESG submission? Thanks. JP. > > geoff > > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 19:50 +0200, JP Vasseur wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> >> On 6/12/08 4:06 PM, "Mark Townsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. >> >> Absolutely ! The only (but useful) objective is to document 6lowpan >> application, informational ID of course. >> >> Thanks. >> >> JP. >> >>>> 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
