Subject: [6lo] Fwd: Sean Turner's No Objection on charter-ietf-6lo-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:32:14 -0400

More comments on the charter...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Sean Turner's No Objection on charter-ietf-6lo-00-00: (with 
COMMENT)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:49:49 -0700
From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>

Sean Turner has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-6lo-00-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-6lo/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Adrian that the draft shouldn't be main impetus for a
charter.  If it is, then I think we can't charter this until the lwig
terminology is actually approved and maybe even published.

In addition, I think the following could be tightened up:

6Lo will
coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas that focus on
constrained node networks, such as today ROLL (RTG) and CoRE (APP), and
appropriate groups in the IETF OPS and Security areas including potential
future
groups spawned from efforts such as COMAN and SOLACE.

Maybe:

6Lo will
coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas that focus on
constrained node networks, such as today ROLL (RTG) and CoRE (APP).

For #4, is there maintenance needed already or is that future proofing
the charter?  Also, what information documents are needed - are there
some already written?

a) It's just an example,  b) you don't actually need to list everything,
and c) COMAN and SOLACE might not happen.

Also, isn't it s2.3 in draft-ietf-lwig-terminology that defines
"Constrained Node Networks" not s2.1 and s2.2?

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:21:11 -0700

On Aug 28, 2013, at 5:32 AM 8/28/13, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Subject: Sean Turner's No Objection on charter-ietf-6lo-00-00: (with COMMENT)

> the charter?  Also, what information documents are needed - are there

There is some potential maintenance to discuss.  The ETSI 6LoWPAN plugtest event revealed that the uncompressed mode in RFC 4944 (dispatch code 0x41) is not useful as intended and should be considered for deprecation.

> and c) COMAN and SOLACE might not happen.

OK, your suggested text looks fine with me.

> "Constrained Node Networks" not s2.1 and s2.2?

We're having an parallel discussion about the definitions.

- Ralph

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

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:25:42 -0400

All,
      I would suggest incorporating Sean's suggested text with the 
changes being made to address Adrian's Block position.

Regards,
Brian