Hi Geoff,
On 6/17/08 10:16 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So then can we agree that the charter text can stand as it was sent out > on 13 June. Well I do not see a consensus here ... Looking at the emails on the subject, 2 in favor, 2 opposed. My proposal. Original text: 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 see that some people want to see the concept of mesh-under and route over covered in the architecture document, fine (although it looks pretty straightforward). The text I'm disagreeing with is: " 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." Why a spin-off ? Make it a separate ID in the first place. Requirements should NOT be discussed in architecture ID. Furthermore, I would slightly reword, remove "addressing both the "route-over" and "mesh-under" approach. And mention that the document will be owned by 6owpan and reviewed by ROLL. Does it make sense ? Thanks. JP. > > Anyone not agreeing? > > geoff > > On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 16:55 +0200, JP Vasseur wrote: >> Hi Carsten, >> >> >> On 6/16/08 9:22 PM, "Carsten Bormann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 16 2008, at 19:43, JP Vasseur wrote: >>> >>>> (2) A separate ID dealing with the subject and used to draw a >>>> consensus. >>> >>> >>> (Assuming you mean on the question of L2 forwarding yes [mesh-under] >>> or no [route-over]:) >>> >>> As I said, I'm not sure we are even getting any closer to a consensus. >>> Why should the WG try to make that decision? Why now? (This is not >>> just a rethorical question!) >> >> Just because it may not be a bad idea to close on this if you do not want >> this topic to pop again in a few month but if you think that this is not >> necessary, fine ... >> >> JP. >> >>> >>> Gruesse, Carsten >>> > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
