Subject: [6lowpan] Charter proposal

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:08:22 -0800

Lowpanners,

Geoff and I have updated the charter proposal based on Marks input and  
yesterday's discussion.
Now would be a good time for comments, in particular also on the  
timelines we are promising.
Separately, we would like to know which of the items you are  
interested in contributing to -- please volunteer now.

Gruesse, Carsten

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

---

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 06:38:58 +0900

Geoff and Garsten,

Thanks for the nice work. I'm happy to see the well-described new charter.
I just have one question on item number 3.

 [  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.
       As a spin-off from that document, "6LoWPAN Routing Requirements" will
       describe 6LoWPAN-specific requirements on routing protocols used in
       6LoWPANs, addressing both the "route-over" and "mesh-under" approach.
       Both documents will be informational.  ]

This phrase says two documents on this item, but I cannot see any
milestone for "6LoWPAN Routing Requirements".
Please let me know if I misunderstand something here.

Thanks,

-eunah

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:45:13 -0800

> milestone for "6LoWPAN Routing Requirements".

We may have phrased that too opaquely.
The Sep 2008 milestone says:

> - Sep 2008 - Submit Architecture documents to IESG for consideration  
> as an
> Informational RFCs
>

which was meant to include both documents (architecture proper and  
routing requirements).
We should separate that out.  Thanks for the comment.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 23:09:04 +0900

Overall looks good to me. Here is several comments at this stage.

COMMENT 1:

[cut and paste]
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.
[snip]

Given the description above, WG should produce "6LoWPAN management
protocols or method" a.k.a. MIB for 6LoWPAN management. I had seen
Mark's positive opinion on this work during our session meeting.

COMMENT 2:

[cut and paste]
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.
[snip]

Given the sentence above, both bootstrapping and ND optimization will
be merged into one deliverable if I am correct. But, I don't think it
is a reasonable way. So, my suggestion is to have both deliverables
for each subject.

COMMENT 3:
I don't have a strong opinion on this matter, but I guess we should
consider how to improve the quality of RFC 4944, especially Global
Address HC, TCP operation, ICMPv6 operation and etc. RFC 4944-bis is
one of options.

COMMENT 4:

Just curious how to dig out *mobility issue* from the proposed
charter. I guess some of requirements of mobility for 6lowpan networks
is doable for the initial activity at this stage except spcific
mobility solutions.

Thanks,

Daniel Park [at] SAMSUNG Electronics.

---

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:32:50 +0200

Hi,

In my opinion the new charter is good, although I would of course liked 
to have seen the bootstrapping/ND optimization timeline to be quite a 
bit faster. But I guess the process is slow as it is going as a proposed 
standard?

One clarification:

Is 4. "Use Cases for 6LoWPAN" the place where such a minimal 
6lowpan/IPv6 profile, for example use cases, be defined? Pascal and I 
were talking about this on the list last week.

Or is the "implementor's guide" ID the correct place for describing the 
minimal profile?

In my opinion either place could do.. We just need something to show 
other groups in a reasonable time (an RFC), so for that reason 4. would 
be a better place as the implementor's guide may go through 22 revisions 
over 5 years ;-)

Contributions:

Personally I'd like to contribute to the implementor's guide and interop 
IDs, along with the "Use Cases for 6lowpan".

- Zach

Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Separately, we would like to know which of the items you are interested 
> in contributing to -- please volunteer now.
> 
> Gruesse, Carsten
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
Zach Shelby | CTO | +358 40 7796297
Sensinode Ltd.   www.sensinode.com

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:59:31 +0100

Hi Carsten:

I do believe that the charter is quite good at this point. It is open to architecture with mesh under and routing over, and does not seem limited to 802.15.4 (at least item 3, 4 and 5 are not, right?).

I would appreciate a sentence to enable maintenance work on existing RFCs (e.g.. RFC 4944 for LP WIFI), and some capability to handle requirements from other parties (e.g.. new 6LoWPAN headers required other parties such as ISA100.11a). 

We also need to understand which group is in charge of the LoWPAN node requirements for IPv6. If that's 6LoWPAN, then I do believe we should have a charter item for it.

To answer Carsten's question, I'm willing to help on work item 1 "6LoWPAN Bootstrapping and 6LoWPAN IPv6 ND Optimizations". I believe it can be stable by end of '08 if a number of choices are made to the simpler. I'm also willing to start some work on fragment recovery if that can be added to the charter. 

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: jeudi 6 décembre 2007 20:08
>To: 6lowpan
>Cc: Carsten Bormann
>Subject: [6lowpan] Charter proposal
>
>Lowpanners,
>
>Geoff and I have updated the charter proposal based on Marks 
>input and yesterday's discussion.
>Now would be a good time for comments, in particular also on 
>the timelines we are promising.

---

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:22:47 +0900

Hi, Carsten and Pascal,

I also think the current proposed charter is in good shape.

> [..]

> We also need to understand which group is in charge of the LoWPAN node requirements for IPv6. If that's 6LoWPAN, then I do believe we should have a charter item for it.
Pascal, we had a good informal meeting with a few volunteer, from your
initiation. I think we can work on it, ask 6lowpaners' feedback and
comments, and if it's the right way to bring to other WG, we can do it
after 6lowpaners' feedback. The important thing is that many 6lowpan
implementors share the necessary of the work. Of course, it would be
more than great if we can officially charter on the item.

-eunsook

---

From: "Dominik Kaspar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:45:03 +0900

Hello,

[Routing Requirements]
As far as I remember, at the IETF-69 we have made the decision to
formulate the 6lowpan-specific routing requirements and feed them into
a hopefully soon existing ROLL working group. Also in IETF-70,
everyone seemed to agree that this is the way to go, so I don't know
why suddenly scepsis is raised again. Having 6lowpan based on IEEE
802.15.4, which differentiates between different device types/roles,
or the assumption that 6lowpans are not transit networks, are only two
examples of what creates sufficient difference to the routing
requirement drafts in ROLL.

[6lowpan/IPv6 Profiling]
It has been suggested to merge a minimal 6lowpan/IPv6 profile into the
"Use Cases for 6lowpan" item. In my opinion, the timeline for the "Use
Cases" document is already set quite generously, while I estimate the
work needed for defining such a minimal profile to be rather
extensive... Also, topicwise the two items are not well matched. The
"Use Cases" documents is aimed to provide a high-level application
overview, while a profile document would give very low-level
information and would fit much better into a "LoWPAN node requirements
for IPv6" document that Pascal has suggested (please correct me if I
misunderstood).

Best regards,
Dominik