Subject: [6lowpan] Use Cases Draft ready as WG document?

From: "Geoff Mulligan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:52:03 -0600

The document draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03 has been stable for some
time now and this is a chartered item.

Are you "in favor of" or "opposed to" adopting
draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03.txt) as
a 6lowpan Working Group Document?

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

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:08:20 +0200

Hi Geoff,

In another email you wrote:

³
Jonathan please submit your draft draft-hui-6lowpan-hc-01
Eunsook please also submit your draft draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03²

Is the second ID adopted as a WG (since below you asked for feed-back) ?

Thanks.

JP.

On 9/22/08 5:52 AM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03.txt) as a
> 6lowpan Working Group Document?
> 
>         Thanks,
>                 geoff
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Geoff Mulligan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:02:05 -0600

JP,
  That was a mistake.  I followed it up with a message to the list asking
for responses on whether the document should become a WG doc.

Please folks on the 6lowpan list respond and let us know if you think the
Use Case document is ready to become a WG draft.

      geoff

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:08 AM, JP Vasseur <[email-masked]> wrote:

> "
> Eunsook please also submit your draft draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03"
>
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03.txt)
> as a 6lowpan Working Group Document?
>
>         Thanks,
>                 geoff
>
>
>
> ------------------------------

---

From: "Dominik Kaspar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:56:18 +0200

Hi Geoff,

As you mentioned, the Use Cases document has been stable for quite
some time, and it has sparked a lot of interest.
I am therefore "in favor of" Working Group adoption.

Greetings,
Dominik

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> ________________________________

---

From: "carl williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:17:46 -0400

Hi Geoff,

    Some of these usage cases were reused in our US DoD trial and I think
this document should be adopted as working group item.

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Dominik Kaspar
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:56 PM
To: Geoff Mulligan
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Use Cases Draft ready as WG document?

Hi Geoff,

Greetings,
Dominik

---

From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:56:50 +0200 (CEST)

Hi all,

I am also in favor.

Carles

---

From: "Benjamin A. Rolfe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:35:01 -0700

Is there a reason that this draft restricts itself to a subset of the 
currently defined PHYs in 802.15.4?
As written, it refers only to the DSSS PHYs. There are currently 2 
additional PHYs defined in the standard (802.15.4a-2007), and there are two 
more amendments nearing completion that define additional PHYs.  I don't see 
any applications in these scenarios that require this restriction. Asset 
tracking, for example, is a likely application of the UWB PHYs (due to 
precision ranging, thus location, capability :-).  The other PHYs have 
characteristics useful in some of these scenarios also. Is there a reason 
for limiting  LoWPAN application to specific PHYs or is this just out of 
date text?

Also, a typo in References [3]: "802.15.4-2006, October 2003"  of course 
15.4-2006 was not published in 2003 :0).  802.15.4-2006 alone is not the 
current version of the standard (802.15.4a-2007 was approved early 2007).  A 
safer thing is to site "802.15.4-2006 as amended" unless there is some 
reason to be restrictive (in which case that reason should be explained in 
the text).

-Ben

---

From: Kris Pister <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:43:55 -0700

I'm in favor of adoption.

There's a lot of good stuff in this document.  I think that it would be 
stronger if the scenarios were backed up by reference to actual 
deployments and/or data.

Regarding the use of FFDs and RFDs: are we really wed to this as a core 
concept?  There may be some market segments that deploy this way, but 
there will certainly be many others in which all devices are battery 
powered and potential routers, and there is no concept of a reduced 
function device.  It's important to design our protocols to be able to 
deal with different capabilities in different nodes, but the FFD/RFD 
distinction doesn't seem like the right one.  The document refers to 
battery powered FFDs - is that even defined at this point?

ksjp

Geoff Mulligan wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:00:11 +0200

Hi:

This draft is a pretty good entry point to understand the work in this
group. I support adopting it into an informational track.

I think that for th enext release,  the authors should be more crisp wrt
to LoWPAN in general vs. 802.15.4 in particular. 

As we move forward, we are extending the concept of LoWPAN to a larger
range of radios.

For instance,  I expect that 802.11LP will be considered a LoWPAN and
there is no concept of corordicator there.

Pascal

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Geoff Mulligan
Sent: lundi 22 septembre 2008 05:52
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [6lowpan] Use Cases Draft ready as WG document?

Are you "in favor of" or "opposed to" adopting
draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03.txt
) as a 6lowpan Working Group Document?

        Thanks,
                geoff

---

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:56:36 +0900

Hello,

Sorry for the late reply. I was out of office.
Thanks for the comment, my answers are inline. :)

> for limiting  LoWPAN application to specific PHYs or is this just out of

RFC 4919 describes
   "Low-power wireless personal area networks (LoWPANs) comprise devices
    that conform to the IEEE 802.15.4-2003 standard by the IEEE 802.15.4."
RFC 4944 says
   "The IEEE 802.15.4 standard [ieee802.15.4] targets low-power personal
   area networks.  This document defines the frame format for
   transmission of IPv6 [RFC2460] packets as well as the formation of
   IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured addresses on
   top of IEEE 802.15.4 networks."

The document followed the concept.
If the current statement sounds too restricted, we can consider rewording.
Please let me know if you have any good suggestion.

> reason to be restrictive (in which case that reason should be explained in

It's a typo. I will change it as you suggested. Thanks. :)

-eunah

---

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:12:17 +0900

Thanks for your support and comments. :)
I will consider your comment for the revision.
Thanks.

-eunah

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think that for th enext release,  the authors should be more crisp wrt to
> LoWPAN in general vs. 802.15.4 in particular.
>
> As we move forward, we are extending the concept of LoWPAN to a larger range
> of radios.
>
> For instance,  I expect that 802.11LP will be considered a LoWPAN and there
> is no concept of corordicator there.
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
> Of Geoff Mulligan

---

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:10:58 +0900

Thank you for your support. :)

Regarding your question on FFDs and RFDs,
honestly we also see that the deployment cases use all FFDs, as far as
I got informed.
When you deploy the scenario, RFDs can be easily replaced to FFDs, but
not the other way around.
So, we thought that the scenario document is better not to rule out RFDs.
That's why we say "FFD or RFD" on every scenario figure.
I will read through the draft and change "FFD or RFD" if only 'RFD' is
used somewhere in the document.
Thanks!

-eunah

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Kris Pister <[email-masked]> wrote:
> stronger if the scenarios were backed up by reference to actual deployments
> and/or data.
>
> concept?  There may be some market segments that deploy this way, but there
> will certainly be many others in which all devices are battery powered and
> potential routers, and there is no concept of a reduced function device.
> It's important to design our protocols to be able to deal with different
> capabilities in different nodes, but the FFD/RFD distinction doesn't seem
> like the right one.  The document refers to battery powered FFDs - is that
> even defined at this point?
>
> ksjp
>
> Geoff Mulligan wrote:
>