> " 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 ?
Sorry, this was poor wording on my part. > Make it a separate ID in the first place. That is what is intended. s/As a spin-off from that document/As a separate I-D/ Give that number 4, and move 4 and 5 to 5 and 6. Add "This document will be informational." at the end of 3, and change "Both documents will be informational." to "This document will be informational." at the end of 4 new. > Requirements > should NOT be discussed in architecture ID. Fine. (Hope that is fixed by the change above.) [As a side note, there are things that are called "architectural requirements" (1).] > Furthermore, I would slightly > reword, remove "addressing both the "route-over" and "mesh-under" > approach. I think this is implicit, so the verbiage is just redundant specificity, but I would like to keep it in order to not rehash this discussion every month. > And mention that the document will be owned by 6owpan and reviewed > by ROLL. Saying that explicitly won't hurt; I agree. Add "This document will be owned by the 6LOWPAN WG and developed in close cooperation with the ROLL WG." after "approach". Are we done now? Gruesse, Carsten (1) See, e.g., http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/4706.html for a systematic approach to architectural requirements. _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
