Folks,
I think that our charter will be discussed on the next IESG telechat,
next Thursday! We need to get the text correct and to Mark WELL BEFORE
the Thursday.
JP has suggested a change to the wording for the Arch Doc draft item.
Please send a message indicating your thoughts about the change.
While I thought that we did have consensus around this particular item I
would like to make sure that we do.
Should we remove the text about mesh-under and route-over?
Should we leave the text as it is?
geoff
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 20:03 +0200, JP Vasseur wrote:
> 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
