Subject: [6lowpan] revised new new charter text

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:12:41 -0600

Perhaps i should have put rev numbers on it...

After the current discussion I think that this is what we have arrived
at.

Please see attached.

        geoff

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:38:26 +0200

Hi Geoff:

The work on fragment recovery and flow control is still missing. I did
not figure that Carsten's mail meant that e should not do it. Did I miss
something?

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Geoff Mulligan
>Sent: mercredi 18 juin 2008 23:13
>To: 6lowpan
>Subject: [6lowpan] revised new new charter text
>

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:01:50 +0200

> not figure that Carsten's mail meant that e should not do it. Did I  

My proposal was to spend some more time shaping these potential work  
items instead of including them in this round.
Since we need to finish the charter now; we should not wait until we  
fully understand what we want to do on these issues; we can always add  
new work items later.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:00:14 +0200

Hi Carsten:

I'm not buying this.

The way the charter is worded we can do nothing on these issues because
we are not chartered to and that would be distraction to the chartered
items. If we wish to "fully understand what we want to do on these
issues", then we need at least to charter a Problem Statement work. 

But I'd think that flow control and ECN are known well enough already so
we could figure intuitively what they would do for 6LoWPAN; in that
case, the question is really whether we think there's a need for those
flow control and ECN to cover our own fragmentation, or not. 

It should not be rocket science for the people in this group to figure
that out and I haven't seen disagreement so far. There's advanced work
available from quite some time in this group on this issue, and taking
that work out now seems a bit arbitrary to me.

Pascal

>From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: jeudi 19 juin 2008 12:02
>To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>Cc: Carsten Bormann; Geoff Mulligan; 6lowpan
>Subject: Re: [6lowpan] revised new new charter text
>

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:37:14 +0200

Chairs, All,

This looks like a pretty good chunk of work for this recharter, and I'd like to get this to the IESG ASAP. Please know that 6lowpan can continue discussing issues outside of this charter (such as fragmentation recovery and the like) as long as it doesn't obviously begin to stand in the way of your deliverables below. Finishing all this in the next 6 months sounds a little aggressive to me, but I'm happy to support taking the current momentum you have and running with it. 

The only change I would make is perhaps removing the first paragraph. 6lowpan has been around long enough that I think we can consider that there is precedent for this type of activity.

Please consider this a 1 week Last Call, ending June 26. Unless I hear strong objections, I will put this on the IESG Telechat for IETF review July 3 (with approval on July 17 if that goes well). You will notice that this means if the charter isn't ready to go on June 26 at the end of this last call, you won't have a new charter before Dublin.

Thanks for all of the hard work, I'm looking forward to the WG meeting these aggressive deadlines.

- Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background/Introduction:
------------------------

Note: Given that there is not much precedent for this type of activity
at the IETF, the text that follows is of an introductory
nature. Hence, its objective is to give a general idea of the
application area and motivations for the work. In particular, this
section is not to be construed as detailing work items for the working
group. That is done in the following section entitled "Scope of the
Working Group."

Well-established fields such as control networks, and burgeoning ones
such as "sensor" (or transducer) networks, are increasingly being
based on wireless technologies. Most (but certainly not all) of these
nodes are amongst the most constrained that have ever been networked
wirelessly. Extreme low power (such that they will run potentially for
years on batteries) and extreme low cost (total device cost in single
digit dollars, and riding Moore's law to continuously reduce that
price point) are seen as essential enablers towards their deployment
in networks with the following characteristics:

  * Significantly more devices than current local area networks

  * Severely limited code and ram space (e.g., highly desirable to fit
  the required code--MAC, IP and anything else needed to execute the
  embedded application--in, for example, 32K of flash memory, using
  8-bit microprocessors)

  * Unobtrusive but very different user interface for configuration
  (e.g., using gestures or interactions involving the physical world)

A chief component of these devices is wireless communication
technology. In particular, the IEEE 802.15.4 standard is very
promising for the lower (physical and link) layers. As for higher
layer functions, there is considerable interest from non-IETF groups
in using IP technology. The IEEE 1451.5 standard for wireless
transducers has a chapter for 6LoWPAN and the ISA SP100 standard for
wireless industrial networks has adopted 6LoWPAN for their network
layer. This working group is expected to coordinate and interact with
such groups.

Description of Working Group:
-----------------------------

The Working Group has completed two RFCs: "IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions,
Problem Statement, and Goals" (RFC4919) that documents and discusses
the problem space and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks" (RFC4944) which defines the format for the adaptation
between IPv6 and 802.15.4.

The Working Group will generate the necessary documents to ensure
interoperable implementations of 6LoWPAN networks and will define the
necessary security and management protocols and constructs for
building 6LoWPAN networks, paying particular attention to protocols
already available.

Work Items:
-----------

1. Produce "6LoWPAN Bootstrapping and 6LoWPAN IPv6 ND Optimizations"
to define limited extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] for
use specifically in low-power networks. This document (or documents)
will define how to bootstrap a 6LoWPAN network and explore ND
optimizations such as reusing the structure of the 802.15.4 network
(e.g., by using the coordinators), and reduce the need for multicast
by having devices talk to coordinators (without creating a single
point-of-failure, or changing the semantics of the IPv6 ND
multicasts).
This document or documents will be a proposed standard.

2. Produce "6LoWPAN Improved Header Compression" to describe mechanisms
to allow enhancements to the 6LoWPAN headers. Specifically this document will
describe compression of addresses that are not link-local.  Additionally this document 
may include other enhancements or optimizations of the HC1 or HC2 6LoWPAN headers.
This document will be a proposed standard.

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.
This document will be informational.

4. As a separate Internet Draft, "6LoWPAN Routing Requirements" will
describe 6LoWPAN-specific requirements on routing protocols used in
6LoWPANs, addressing both the "route-over" and "mesh-under" approach. This
document will be created and owned by this working group but is expected to
be reviewed by the ROLL WG.
This document will be informational.

5. Produce "Use Cases for 6LoWPAN" to define, for a small set of
applications with sufficiently unique requirements, how 6LoWPANs can
solve those requirements, and which protocols and configuration
variants can be used for these scenarios. The use cases will cover
protocols for transport, application layer, discovery, configuration
and commissioning.
This document will be informational.

6. Produce "6LoWPAN Security Analysis" to define the threat model of
6LoWPANs, to document suitability of existing key management
schemes and to discuss bootstrapping/installation/commissioning/setup
issues.  This document will be referenced from the "security
considerations" of the other 6LoWPAN documents.
This document will be informational.

The working group will continue to reuse existing protocols and
mechanisms whenever reasonable and possible.

Non-milestone work items:
-------------------------

The Working Group will keep two running, often-respun documents:
-- implementers guide, collecting clarifying information based on
input from implementers, in particular as it becomes available from
interoperability events.
-- interoperability guide, providing information for interoperability
events, such as temporary interoperability testing strategies or
information about test harnesses used for interoperability testing.

Both documents will be WG documents, but their disposition is not
decided at this point (one example for such a document became RFC 4815
after five years of maintenance and 22 revisions).

Goals and Milestones:
---------------------

- Aug 2008 - Submit Improved Header Compression document to IESG for consideration as
a proposed standard.
- Aug 2008 - Submit Security Analysis document to IESG for consideration as
an Informational RFC.
- Sep 2008 - Submit Architecture document to IESG for consideration as an
Informational RFC
- Sep 2008 - Submit Routing Requirements document to IESG for consideration as an 
Informational RFC
- Nov 2008 - Submit Bootstrapping and ND Optimizations document to IESG to
be considered as a Proposed Standard
- Dec 2008 - Submit Use Case document to IESG as an Informational RFC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:37:20 +0200

On Jun 19 2008, at 15:00, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:

> items.

Pascal,

this is not the way we want to work here -- the charter items are the  
ones we *promise* to deliver; but we do have a maintenance item in  
there, and we can use that to build problem statements and even  
solutions.

In other words, I would look forward to a session slot in Dublin where  
we can make progress on this.
But I don't want to hold up the charter now.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:02:25 +0200

>> we are not chartered to and that would be distraction to the chartered
As long as they are not a distraction, then you can work on whatever you 
would like :-)

In the past (2 or 3 years ago?) I did slap a mandate on this group to 
stop talking about unchartered work before the most basic deliverables 
were achieved. That time has passed, and the floodgates are open again. 
Please contribute and do work on whatever you think is important. I'd 
like to take the current charter to the IESG as is if there is consensus 
to do so, keeping in mind that as long as you stay on track as a WG, and 
as long as the discussion of unchartered work isn't seemingly holding up 
progress on chartered work, you can discuss and work on whatever you 
wish on this list and in the WG meetings.

Thanks,

- Mark

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:47:37 +0200

Thanks for the changes.

Cheers.

JP.

---

From: "carl williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:21:19 -0700

Hi Mark and Carsten,

    I agree with the current charter.  There was an item that Geoff Mulligan
presented on mobility and sensors at the last IETF 6lowpan meeting.  It is
not a priority currently but will be in the future.  So it is good that
while the working group keeps on track with current work items that we may
continue to discuss the subject that Geoff raised at the last meeting if
time permits (and we continue to make progress on current agenda items).

   I agree with your proposal for discussing work and thanks for the hard
work on the getting a new charter.

  Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Mark Townsley
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:02 AM
To: Carsten Bormann
Cc: 6lowpan
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] revised new new charter text

Thanks,

- Mark