Dear Zhen, thank you for your kind review.
We mentioned in-car networks as part of Mobile Applications in section 2.10. Do you think a separate use case should be added or it can be seen as covered under M2M services? I agree management of 'sleepy nodes' might become challenging. I will look into that in more detail. Would you like to contribute some text? Cheers, Mehmet > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Cao,Zhen > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 8:39 AM > To: Warren Kumari > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for reviewers of draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-* > > Dear authors and all, > > I read through the two drafts, and believe the two documents are > useful for operators and SPs that manage a constrained device network. > Thank you for the work. > > a) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-use-cases-00 > > This draft is pretty sufficient at the time of writing. But i do not > know how to act for new use cases coming up. For example, vehicle > communication networks. There are many use case documents in IETF, but > how sufficient they should be. I believe the issue will be raised up > during IESG review. > > b) http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs/ > > This document is also pretty sufficient. The requirement template is > very good practice. > > One cent to the document is, shall we consider the management of > sleepy nodes in section 3? There are many discussions in coap/lwig for > these sleepy nodes. The management of these devices is rather > challenging. Although there are some discussion in 'Energy > management', the scope of sleepy nodes management should be broader > than that. > > Best regards, > caozhen@chinamobile > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Hopefully you all had a good Thanksgiving -- if you are in the US, > > hopefully you had > good turkey, stuffing / whatever. > > If you are not US based, hopefully you enjoyed the decrease in email volume > > while > everyone recovered form eating too much. :-) > > > > One of the action items from Vancouver was for us to call for reviewers for: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs/ > > and > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-use-cases/ > > > > So, can we get some volunteers please? According to our new guidelines we > > require > sufficient reviewers before adopting new work. > > > > The documents are (IMO) interesting and easy to read. Constrained devices > > have > some interesting requirements and limitations. > > If you would like a quick reminder / refresher from the meeting, slides are > > here: > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-11.pdf > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> indicated that > > one > of his Ph.D. students had read the draft a couple of weeks ago. So they just > have to > review the changes to the latest version. > > > > > > W > > -- > > "I think it would be a good idea." > > - Mahatma Ghandi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
