Subject: Re: [6lowpan] agenda for upcoming IETF

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:27:08 +0100

On Mar 1, 2011, at 08:29, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> It seems to me we will spend some time in Prague discussing the resolution of the ND-15 WGLC comments.
> (The WGLC ends on 2011-03-03, and the deadline for submission of an I-D update (non-00) is 2011-03-14.)

(Upon rereading this message, it seems I neglected to make explicit something that is obvious to me:

I meant this in the sense of "what have we accomplished, where do we stand, do we need anything else to go with that", not in the sense "let's drag on tweaking that thing until it no longer moves".

Sorry about that.  There undoubtedly will be an ND-16, if only to correct the typos.)

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "Noriyuki SATO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:53:09 +0900

Hi Geoff,
I have an interest in working on mesh under discussion and vote yes to start
discussion for it. 
Some L2 protocol defines the mesh routing protocol in its L2 specification,
however some don't have (802.15.4 decided not having mesh routing in it, as
you mentioned in last meeting.) For the L2 which doesn't have mesh routing,
I believe we need to extend dispatcher for generic commands, carrier of mesh
routing metrics, L2 address basis source routing etc. as route over works on
ICMP. However, I'm afraid that I cannot write a draft up by the next IETF
meeting unfortunately.

Besides, IEEE802.15.4e is going to finalize its specification and it will be
done around end of this year. It has many optional MAC functionalities,
which includes low energy which enables sleeping router. I'm looking forward
to incorporate sleeping router functionality into 6lowpan.

We still have many items to do in 6lowpan WG.

Noriyuki Sato

---
OKI Electric Industry Co., Ltd.
Noriyuki Sato ([email-masked])
Tel +81-6-6260-0700
Fax +81-6-6260-0770

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Geoff Mulligan
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 8:20 AM
To: 6lowpan
Subject: [6lowpan] agenda for upcoming IETF

As you all should know the 6lowpan WG meeting is currently scheduled for
Tuesday afternoon 1520-1700 and we are looking for agenda items.

There has been little or no discussion on our mailing list since the
last IETF meeting.

Hopefully the ND and HC drafts are basically complete.  The Use Case and
Routing Requirements drafts are moving forward.

At the last meeting the other topic that seemed to have some traction in
the WG was working on other header compression techniques.  We have two
different drafts on this topic: Carsten's generic header compression and
Colin's ICMP header compression.

The other topic that hotly discussed atwas whether the group should work
on Mesh Under.

Again we have had no discussion on our list about any of these topics.

Besides the drafts from Carsten and Colin, we have had another draft on
global address compression.

The meta topic we need to discuss both at the meeting and on this list -
Should we call it quits or should we recharter?

Input???

	geoff

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

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:09:28 +0100

Hi Geoff:

I think that the chairs also had the task to conclude with the ML
whether we'd do the work on Backbone Router and on Fragment recovery in
this group or not.
I think the former at least does not require re-chartering since it used
to be part of a WG doc. Yet, I have not seen that decision being made.
Could you please trigger those threads?
As a more generic item, do you envision re-chartering at all to take new
work aboard?

Cheers,

Pascal
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7011357/

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Geoff Mulligan
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:20 AM
> To: 6lowpan
last IETF
> meeting.
> At the last meeting the other topic that seemed to have some traction
in the
> WG was working on other header compression techniques.  We have two

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:51:43 -0700

Pascal,
> whether we'd do the work on Backbone Router and on Fragment recovery in

That was not my recollection, so I will defer to Carsten.
But anyone else that would like to weigh in on these two topics:
  Backbone Router
  Fragment Recovery

> As a more generic item, do you envision re-chartering at all to take new

I thought that was part of the my question to the WG?

	geoff

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:52:31 -0700

Pascal,

	geoff

---

From: "Colin O'Flynn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 18:11:13 +0100

Hello,

I just wanted to make sure it was publically recorded that what Carsten says
is accurate. I consider the GHC draft a much better replacement for the
ICMPv6-specific one. I have no plans on continuing work for the
ICMPv6-specific one, indeed it is already out of date with the ND draft.

Regards,

 -Colin

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Carsten Bormann
Sent: March 1, 2011 8:30 AM
To: Geoff Mulligan
Cc: 6lowpan
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] agenda for upcoming IETF

It seems to me we will spend some time in Prague discussing the resolution
of the ND-15 WGLC comments.
(The WGLC ends on 2011-03-03, and the deadline for submission of an I-D
update (non-00) is 2011-03-14.)

Colin has said the GHC draft has essentially replaced his ICMP-specific one.
I plan to submit a version of that draft that supplies text for the
discovery/negotiation that was still outstanding in the version discussed in
Beijing.
(There also was some hallway discussion about ASCII compression -- I'll
include something very simple, which we may or may not want to throw out
again.  Does anyone have nice packet samples for evaluating that?)

Declaring victory after that sounds like an option.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:31:41 -0700

Colin,
  thanks for the clarification.

	geoff

---

From: Paul Chilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:13:14 +0100

Hi Geoff
I would support further work on header compression and also Mesh Under in the working group.  We have successfully deployed commercial mesh-under IP-based networks using a proprietary mesh protocol 
Operating on the 15.4 link layer and would be interested in sharing our experiences and working with others on this topic
I am also interested in improving fragmentation behaviour so I would like to see work in this area
Paul

Paul Chilton
Low Power RF Solutions (formerly Jennic)
NXP Semiconductors
www.nxp.com/jennic

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Geoff Mulligan
Sent: 28 February 2011 23:20
To: 6lowpan
Subject: [6lowpan] agenda for upcoming IETF

Input???

	geoff

---

From: Kris Pister <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 20:10:44 -0800

I agree with Noriyuki-san, especially about 15.4e.  There are some nice 
features in 4e in addition to the sleepy routers, such as reduced header 
size, and flexible extensions to the header for things like mesh under.

ksjp