I would suggest to reword the text related to the architecture ID and remove the mesh-under/route over discussion for the moment.
JP. On 6/13/08 7:47 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So do think that the text of the Arch doc item needs to be changed or > are you thinking that it arch doc item needs to be removed completely > until we have the mesh-under vs router over discussion? > > geoff > > On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 19:33 +0200, JP Vasseur wrote: >> 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
