Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Issue of the week: Charter finalization

From: "Chol Kang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:53:40 -0800

Hi Geoff and Carsten,

I am also interested in contributing to:

      7. Interop Guide.

Regards,

Chol Su Kang

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Geoff Mulligan [mailto:[email-masked]]

>Sent: lundi 10 décembre 2007 21:47

>To: 6lowpan

>Subject: [6lowpan] Issue of the Week: Charter Finalization

>Lowpanners,

>We have had some recent discussion on issues related to network 

>structure, in particular the use of multicast and the issue of sleeping 

>nodes.

>Carsten and I don't want to interrupt this discussion, but we would 

>like to remind everyone that we also have one CRITICAL short term 

>objective:

>Getting rechartered.

>The *theme of the week* for the working group is the finalization of 

>the charter.  In particular, the following questions have been raised:

>A) is the timeline, which was too tight, now too relaxed?  (Obviously,

>   the chairs don't think so, but what do you think?)

>B) should there be work on a "minimal 6lowpan/IPv6 profile"?  (We had

>   envisioned each of the use cases to explain what protocols are used

>   in implementing that particular use case, not the generation of a

>   unified minimal profile that would apply to all use cases.)

>C) Daniel has reminded us that there needs to be a management solution

>   at some point.  We're not sure that simply defining a MIB is the

>   right way to provide this (SNMPv3 on sensor nodes?).  Instead, we

>   could add "management method" to the subjects of the architecture

>   document before actually creating the solution.  Is that the right

>   place?

>D) The discussions about multicast have reminded us that 4944 alone

>   does not provide a solution beyond a single radio range.  MANET's

>   SMF provides one, but presupposes some support from the routing

>   protocol.  The BbR approach reminds me of 802.11, where all

>   multicast is unicast to the AP which then sends it back into the

>   wireless network (which might allow a simplified flooding based on

>   something like RPF).

>E) There were some comments during the meeting that we already were

>   taking on a sizable amount of work.  I'm not sure we want to take

>   on all of the other points Daniel raised:

>   [...] 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.

>   [...] 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 specific

>   mobility solutions.

>F) Going through each of the documents, the following contributions

>   have been promised recently:

>1 "6LoWPAN Bootstrapping and 6LoWPAN IPv6 ND Optimizations": 

>We have longstanding contributions from Samita Chakrabarti and Erik 

>Nordmark.

>Anybody else?  Daniel has also proposed to split 1 into bootstrapping 

>and ND optimization.  There is also the subject of commissioning.

>What is the right set of documents, and which ones do (each

>of) you want to work on?

>2 "Problem Statement for Stateful Header Compression in 6LoWPANs":

>During the meeting, Kris Pister indicated that he was interested in 

>contributing, and Carsten Bormann might be contributing a bit of ROHC 

>background.

>3 "6LoWPAN Architecture" already has a draft from Dave Culler, Geoff 

>Mulligan, and JP Vasseur.  Any other takers?  In particular, somebody 

>with a network management slant?

>3a "Routing requirements" (which needs its own milestone

>entry) has a draft from Dominik Kaspar, Eunsook Kim, and Carsten 

>Bormann.  During the RL2N BOF, a similar document was proposed as a 

>result of the RL2N-followup WG to be formed.  We need to understand 

>whether the two documents (the 6lowpan one and the rl2n++ one) are 

>sufficiently different or whether we simply need to cooperate on one 

>document, which would then have to include the 6lowpan-specific aspects 

>including mesh-under.

>4 "Use Cases for 6LoWPAN".  Zach Shelby has indicated his interest.

>Eunsook Kim et al.'s "Design and Application Spaces for 6LoWPANs"

>might provide a basis, but we need more input, in particular from 

>implementors of each of these scenarios that we actually want to use as 

>use cases.

>5 "6LoWPAN Security Analysis".  Daniel / Anybody?  (Carsten and Geoff 

>might provide some input, but can't do this on their own.)

>6 Implementers' guide: Zach Shelby and Jonathan Hui are interested.

>What about the other folks that have built or are building 6LoWPAN 

>implementations.

>7 Interop guide: Zach Shelby and Jonathan Hui are interested. 

>What about the other folks that have built or are building 6LoWPAN 

>implementations.

>In order to accelerate rechartering, we should have answers to these 

>questions/credible sets of contributors to these documents by the end 

>of this week, so please don't hesitate providing your input.

>Gruesse, Carsten and Geoff

>_______________________________________________

>6lowpan mailing list

>[email-masked]

>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

 

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

---

From: "Pieter De Mil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:18:50 +0100 (CET)

Hi Carsten, All,

I've attended the Vancouver-meeting (my first IETF meeting) and I support
the new charter.
Some comments inline...

>    at some point.  I'm not sure that simply defining a MIB is the

 Network monitoring is a crucial component of a wireless network, in order
to detect node and link failures, to detect interference, to monitor
remaining life time of devices, to monitor achieved QoS, etc.
Monitoring leads to network management actions. I'm convinced it's
important to add a management framework in the architecture document and I
would like to contribute to this.

>    and etc. RFC 4944-bis is one of options.

What is the impact of TCP in wireless sensor networks? I believe a new
(adaptive) transport layer will be of great benefit to some scenarios (but
I guess that is out of scope of this WG).

> 1 "6LoWPAN Bootstrapping and 6LoWPAN IPv6 ND Optimizations": We have
> longstanding contributions from Samita Chakrabarti and Erik Nordmark.
> What is the right set of documents, and which ones do (each of) you
> want to work on?
>

Commissioning and bootstrapping are very interesting topics, count me in.
Security will be an important aspect of this.

> contributing, and Carsten Bormann (that would be me) might be
> contributing a bit of ROHC background.
>

I'm willing to help on this (Architecture + network management).

>
> 3a "Routing requirements" (which needs its own milestone entry) has a
> draft from Dominik Kaspar, Eunsook Kim, and Carsten Bormann.  During
> the RL2N BOF, a similar document was proposed as a result of the
> RL2N-followup WG to be formed.  We need to understand whether the two
> documents (the 6lowpan one and the rl2n++ one) are sufficiently
> different or whether we simply need to cooperate on one document,
> which would then have to include the 6lowpan-specific aspects
> including mesh-under.

The routing requirements are different for each use case. Even for a
specific use case, vendors may want to emphasize different aspects (e.g.
maximum network lifetime vs. low latency).
> implementors of each of these scenarios that we actually want to use
> as use cases.

We have developed network solutions for Wireless Building Automation.
We'll be happy to give some input.

>
> 5 "6LoWPAN Security Analysis".  Nobody?  (I might provide some input,
> but can't do this on my own.)
>
> 6 Implementers' guide: Zach Shelby is interested
>
> 7 Interop guide: Zach Shelby is interested
>
> questions/credibles sets of contributors to these documents at the end
> Gruesse, Carsten

Thanks for all your hard work, your efforts are appreciated!

Happy holidays,
Pieter