Hi Geoff,
On 6/13/08 7:25 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JP, > As I said previously, when Carsten, Mark and I reviewed the > comments/messages on the list it was clear that ND, Architecture, and > Security were priority items along with dealing with enhancements to > compression of non link local addresses and that there was clear support > to take these on within the working group. And now also the Use Cases > draft. > > I am less certain that there is consensus that fragment recovery is a > necessary working group item at this point. So I will ask the WG. > > As to your question about the Arch doc, I'm not sure that I understand > the question or the timing? The text for this hasn't changed for > months. It seems that there are members of the WG that want to see the > architectural description that includes both a mesh under solution and a > route over. How would you propose that we determine if there is a need > for both? My proposal would be to have a discussion on this topic first, trying to reach a consensus in the WG on whether or not we need to define a mesh-under solution. Once we have reached a consensus, then move on and start to incorporate it as part of the architecture ID or another document. In term of routing requirement ID, I would suggest: * To move ahead with the 6lowpan specific requirement ID, owned by the 6lowpan WG and reviewed by ROLL, * hold-off on the mesh-under routing requirements until we have reached a consensus. Makes sense ? Thanks. JP. > > geoff > > On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, JP Vasseur wrote: >> Hi Geoff, >> >> Thanks for sending out the new revision. One question, one comment. >> >> Question: could you explain the rationale for leaving out the fragmentation >> recovery item? >> >> Comment: >> >> "3. Produce "6LoWPAN Architecture" to describe the design and >> implementation of 6LoWPAN networks. This document will cover the >> concepts of "Mesh Under" and "Route Over", 802.15.4 design issues such >> as operation with sleeping nodes, network components (both battery- >> and line-powered), addressing, and IPv4/IPv6 network connections. >> As a spin-off from that document, "6LoWPAN Routing Requirements" will >> describe 6LoWPAN-specific requirements on routing protocols used in >> 6LoWPANs, addressing both the "route-over" and "mesh-under" approach. >> Both documents will be informational." >> >> I do not understand the rationale here: I think that we should first >> determine whether we both need a mesh-under *and* a route-over approach. You >> know my opinion: we have numerous examples in the past of such approaches >> that ALL failed for obvious technical reasons but this is my technical >> opinion. As far as 6lowpan is concerned, shouldn't we first have a >> discussion to get a consensus there ? *If* it turns out that both are >> needed, then add an introductory section in the architecture document >> pointing to the requirement document(s). >> >> Thus I would rather suggest not to list this as a WG item but to leave it >> out for the moment and continue to have the discussion until we have a >> consensus. Then at that point we could decide what to do. On the other hand, >> having a separate documents listing the 6LoWPAN specific routing >> requirements, owned by the 6lowpan WG and reviewed by ROLL would make a lot >> of sense. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Thanks. >> >> JP. >> >> >> >> On 6/13/08 3:59 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> With the input from the authors we've put the "Use Cases" back into the >>> text for the charter for the working group with a delivery date of Dec >>> 08. >>> >>> Attached is the NEW new charter text. >>> >>> 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
