Subject: [6lowpan] UPDATE '6LoWPAN Routing Requirements'

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:55:51 +0900

Dear 6LoWPANers,

For revision of the routing requirement documents, please give us your comments.
Currently, we have 4 tickets at issue tracker.

(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/query?component=routing-requirements)

- #1: "Make sure interface to 15.4 is clear".
One of the comments in Minneapolis
was whether 6LoWPAN WG is assuming only the 802.15.4 frame format or the
whole PHY/MAC protocol.

- #2: "Improve discussion of mutual requirements of routing and header
compression".
the relation between routing and header compression, contexts, etc

- #3: "Discuss hibernation-induced latency with the latency requirements".
Latency may be affected by nodes hibernation, depending on the MAC used.
Other MAC approaches than the legacy 802.15.4 may be used (e.g. TDMA) and
duty cycling may also affect latency (and many other things).

- #4: "Refine discussion on how MAC-layer ACKs can go into routing".
There was a comment that 802.15.4 does not protect layer two acknowledgments.
So many systems use data frames for acknowledgements.

Please feel free to give us comments on these issues or any other
issues for the revision.

Greetings,
-eunah

---

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:01:26 +0200

Hi,

In Minneapolis, there was another comment that came up (from me, and 
some others) which should be added as a ticket. Didn't notice it wasn't 
there earlier, sorry.

-00 of the draft is extremely IEEE 802.15.4 specific. The working group 
has moved towards link-layer independence and has accepted that 6lowpan 
is being used over other radio technologies in addition to 802.15.4. In 
fact, the new HC and ND drafts are already written to be link-layer 
independent.

My request is to make this draft more link-layer agnostic. I think it is 
fine to use IEEE 802.15.4 as an example, however it should be mentioned 
and considered that 6lowpan will be used over other low-power radios 
which may have similar characteristics to 802.15.4, but surely not the 
exact same mechanisms such as RFD/FFD and superframes. The use of these 
features in practice in the industry is also marginal even for 802.15.4.

On the same note - we need to correct this in RFC4944 as well either 
through an update or replacing it. Making it clear to newcomers that 
6lowpan is only for 802.15.4.

Thanks,
Zach

Eunsook "Eunah" Kim wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

-- 

Zach Shelby
Head of Research
Sensinode Ltd.
Kidekuja 2
88610 Vuokatti
FINLAND

mobile: +358 40 7796297

This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain 
legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without 
producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:33:43 +0100

Zach Shelby a écrit :
>  some others) which should be added as a ticket. Didn't notice it
> wasn't there earlier, sorry.
> 
> -00 of the draft is extremely IEEE 802.15.4 specific. The working
> group has moved towards link-layer independence and has accepted that
> 6lowpan is being used over other radio technologies in addition to
> 802.15.4. In fact, the new HC and ND drafts are already written to be
> link-layer independent.

Sorry, I don't understand.  With respect to draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-00.txt

Do you mean ND for 6LoWPAN could work over a WiFi link?

Alex

---

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:31:15 +0900

Zach,

Thank you very much for your comment.
The issue is already in the issue tracker. #1 is actually for that. We
are revising the text.
Thanks a lot,

-eunah

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Zach Shelby <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In Minneapolis, there was another comment that came up (from me, and some
> others) which should be added as a ticket. Didn't notice it wasn't there
> earlier, sorry.
>
> -00 of the draft is extremely IEEE 802.15.4 specific. The working group has
> moved towards link-layer independence and has accepted that 6lowpan is being
> used over other radio technologies in addition to 802.15.4. In fact, the new
> HC and ND drafts are already written to be link-layer independent.
>
> fine to use IEEE 802.15.4 as an example, however it should be mentioned and
> considered that 6lowpan will be used over other low-power radios which may
> have similar characteristics to 802.15.4, but surely not the exact same
> mechanisms such as RFD/FFD and superframes. The use of these features in
> practice in the industry is also marginal even for 802.15.4.
>
> On the same note - we need to correct this in RFC4944 as well either through
> an update or replacing it. Making it clear to newcomers that 6lowpan is only
> for 802.15.4.
>
> Thanks,
> Zach
>