I'm sorry JP. I had forgotten that you were an author. I hadn't looked
at the authors and had just remembered Eunsook and Dominik. Sorry to
Nicolas also.
Since we want to press forward, I'll assume that Dec 08 is a comfortable
date and put this missing piece back into the charter and resend it to
everyone.
geoff
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 20:37 +0200, JP Vasseur wrote:
>
>
> 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
