Subject: [6lowpan] A suggestion ... With regards to re-chartering

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 04:25:01 +0200

Hi,

Just a suggestion for the chairs and the WG.

We have discussed many important items for 6lowpan.

For several of them, all important, I think that there was a clear
agreement: statefull header compression, security, Architecture ID,
fragmentation, ..... For other ones such as the ³Mesh-under² and ³Route
over² discussion, there are diverging point of views.

So why not trying to quickly re-charter adding the items for which there is
a consensus and continue the discussion on the open issues in the meantime
until we have an agreement at which point the WG may re-charter ?

As we all know, the WG has been fairly slow in term of progress and it is I
think now urgent to move on.

Thoughts ?

Thanks.

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

---

From: "Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 19:42:51 +0900

+ 1

-- 
Soohong Daniel Park [at] Samsung Electronics
Standard Architect, http://blog.naver.com/natpt

On 5/30/08, JP Vasseur <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> *Just a suggestion* for the chairs and the WG.
>
> fragmentation, ..... For other ones such as the "Mesh-under" and "Route
> over" discussion, there are diverging point of views.
>

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:48:48 +0200

Hi JP

Works with me. I went through the published work and the recent thread "
New charter for 6lowpan".
My conclusion is as follows:

>From the reworked charter, we should keep Work Items 1, 3, and 5 which
appear of foremost importance, drop 2 and 4 because pragmatically we are
not advanced enough in these areas.

For 1) we have draft-chakrabarti-6lowpan-ipv6-nd that we can couple with
draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router and we have most of the content we
need to make a standard track doc.

For 3) we have draft-culler-6lowpan-architecture. It needs improvement
in particular in explaining route over vs. mesh under in details as we
currently discuss in the ML. Also mobility, backbone... but we have
people interested in the discussion (see current threads) so we should
work it out.

For 5) we have draft-daniel-6lowpan-security-analysis. We need to make
sure we have people committed to the effort but the current draft looks
good already.

To those 3, I'd add:

Explore requirements and usages.
---------------------------------
We have a draft, draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios that we can leverage. I'd
add to it some words on existing standards that need or use 6LowPAN. In
particular, we need to place ISA100 requirements in there to be able to
better serve them later.

RFC 4944 maintenance and improvements
-------------------------------------
This should cover at least 6lowpan HC and fragment recovery efforts. We
can discuss if we want ECN in that work item as well. 

What do you think?

Pascal
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent: vendredi 30 mai 2008 04:25
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [6lowpan] A suggestion ... With regards to re-chartering

Hi,

For several of them, all important, I think that there was a clear
agreement: stateful header compression, security, Architecture ID,
fragmentation, ..... For other ones such as the "Mesh-under" and "Route
over" discussion, there are diverging point of views.

So why not trying to quickly re-charter adding the items for which there
is a consensus and continue the discussion on the open issues in the
meantime until we have an agreement at which point the WG may re-charter
?

As we all know, the WG has been fairly slow in term of progress and it
is I think now urgent to move on.

Thoughts ?

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Jonathan Hui <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 08:14:08 -0700

Hi Everyone,

In support of most of this. For ND, we should add work on route-over  
as well, which I've committed to at the last WG meeting. Architecture  
is needed at this stage, and I'm willing to help drive it. RFC 4944  
maintenance is needed as well.

I still think we need some document to define requirements for a L2  
meshing over 802.15.4 subnetwork. As I've said before, this could be a  
separate document or a part of the architecture document.

I hope we can close on this quickly...

--
Jonathan Hui

---

From: Jonathan Hui <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:32:38 -0700

Hi Geoff,

On May 30, 2008, at 9:10 AM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
> Jonathan,
>  We have the ID for routing requirements.  Could this, or a portion of
> it, be the starting point for the L2 meshing (mehs under) requirements
> document.

Just to be clear, I was referring to my earlier proposal of having a  
document something like: "requirements and suggestions for 6lowpan  
mesh-under subnetwork designs". Routing is only one piece of that, and  
we can certainly start by taking the existing ID for routing  
requirements. But there are a lot of other issues (e.g. whether or not  
multicast emulation is supported and if so what properties do we  
expect of it, what kind of latencies do we expect, what kind of  
traffic flows do we assume, if not arbitrary point-to-point, etc.).  
These are all useful items for other SDOs to refer to.

> I've been thinking about the Routing Requirements doc.  Should 6lowpan
> generate a ID that is a WG doc for use by ROLL as requirements for  
> Route
> Over or should we (members of 6lowpan) just make sure that the current
> drafts within roll address our needs and concerns and the the Routing
> Requirements draft should instead be focused on mesh under.

The primary value of having a doc come from 6LoWPAN is that we can  
state 6LoWPAN-specific requirements. The ROLL requirements have them  
in more general terms (e.g. low throughput, small MTU, etc.), while  
6LoWPAN can state some hard constraints (e.g. 250 kbps at 2.4GHz, 127  
byte MTU (smaller after headers), etc.). I'm not sure how important it  
is to state the specifics, but if we feel it is important then I'm  
fine with that.

--
Jonathan Hui

>
>
> 	geoff
>
> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 08:14 -0700, Jonathan Hui wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:10:59 -0600

Jonathan,

generate a ID that is a WG doc for use by ROLL as requirements for Route

	geoff

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:18:06 -0600

I basically agree with Pascal.  I think that we have a good start on
items 1, 3 and 5.  As for security we have a commitment from Shouichi
and Robert to take the draft from Daniel and complete it.

I think that we should move forward with HC1g as part of the 4944
improvement and maintenance.

	geoff

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:32:27 -0600

Could item 3 - the architecture work item include the requirements for
mesh under as mentioned by Jonathan and should that be a single
document?

>From Pascal I inferred that we would postpone item 2 and the HC1g would
fall under updates to 4944.

	geoff

On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 04:25 +0200, JP Vasseur wrote:
> fragmentation, ..... For other ones such as the “Mesh-under” and
> “Route over” discussion, there are diverging point of views.
> 
> So why not trying to quickly re-charter adding the items for which
> there is a consensus and continue the discussion on the open issues in
> the meantime until we have an agreement at which point the WG may
> re-charter ?
>

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:35:02 +0200

Hi,

> Requirements draft should instead be focused on mesh under.

I would without hesitation vote for the later and concentrate here on all
pretty urgent items.

Thanks.

JP.

>>> there

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:52:13 +0200

Hi Pascal,

We're in sync - addition comment in line.

> need to make a standard track doc.

Yes.

> currently discuss in the ML.

For the time being, let's try to re-charter and get it as a WG item.

Stating whether we need text on mesh-under versus router over for 6lowpan in
the architecture document is I think premature. IMO we first need to draw a
consensus on this topic in the WG and decide what to do from there (why not
documenting the decision in an informational ID (Chairs' call).

Also mobility, backbone... but we have
> people interested in the discussion (see current threads) so we should

Yes. + other items. The ID needs lots of work for sure. This was a very
first cut.

> sure we have people committed to the effort but the current draft looks

Yes.

> Explore requirements and usages.

Excellent idea, although I guess that you did not mean "requirement" but
applicability statement.

> This should cover at least 6lowpan HC and fragment recovery efforts.

Probably tow different WG items but yes, agree!

 We
> can discuss if we want ECN in that work item as well.

Looks good to me.

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:57:03 +0200

Hi Jonathan,

On 5/30/08 5:14 PM, "Jonathan Hui" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> as well, which I've committed to at the last WG meeting.

Yes we captured the notes :-)

 Architecture  
> is needed at this stage, and I'm willing to help drive it.

We do need a deep pass at the architecture doc. Let's work together off-line
on this.

RFC 4944  
> separate document or a part of the architecture document.

At the very least I'd say a separate document once we'll have an agreement
on whether we need L2 meshing work here.

Cheers.

JP.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 15:00:16 +0200

Hi Geoff,

> mesh under as mentioned by Jonathan and should that be a single

If OK with you, I would prefer to keep the mesh-under routing requirements
separate from the architecture ID. Once we WG will have converged on this
topic, this could be added.

Thanks.

JP.

>> fragmentation, ..... For other ones such as the ³Mesh-under² and
>> ³Route over² discussion, there are diverging point of views.
>>