Hi, I believe that the Use Cases document is very meaningful work. I will continue to contribute to this document and I agree that finishing the I-D until December 2008 is a feasible goal.
Greetings, Dominik On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:47 PM, 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
