This is probably fine. Since we are already no Rev 2 we might be able
to complete it sooner, but I don't want to pressure anyone. I hope that
the current authors can provide some input.
geoff
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 20:03 +0200, JP Vasseur wrote:
> 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
