Dear all, Geoff, I support leaving the new charter text as it is.
Greetings, Carles > 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 > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
