On 6/12/08 8:19 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
I'm one of them. Eunah, what do you think ?
JP.
>
> 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
