Dominik,
Great. Thanks.
geoff
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 11:01 +0200, Dominik Kaspar wrote:
> 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
