Sorry not to involve the discussion on time. I was out of the office. Thanks JP to handle this matter. :)
Dec 2008 sounds fine with me. -eunah On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Geoff Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
