Jonathan Hui wrote:
>
> Hi Mark, thanks for reigniting the discussion on this.
>
> - Improving RFC 4944 is an important one. The biggest issue I have
> with it in the near term is that the IPv6 header compression does not
> allow compression of non-link-local addresses, which is an important
> case if we truly intend to do inter-networking. This is the most
> important point of the 6lopwan-hc draft. Backwards compatibility is
> supported by utilizing new dispatch values. But it's important to
> consider what the implementation costs are of supporting the
> LOWPAN_HC1 defined in RFC 4944, especially since 6lowpan-hc does cover
> most of the useful cases in LOWPAN_HC1. Something for the WG to
> discuss...
Yes, in is incumbent on us as the IETF to ensure that the 6lowpan can
ultimately be a part of the wider Internet.
>
> - To your point on ND, this is precisely why the architecture draft is
> so important. We haven't given it as much attention lately, but it
> will help resolve the question your raise and many other questions in
> the future. For example, the architecture draft identifies two modes
> of operation: mesh-under and route-over. Both of which may require
> different ND mechanisms. This doesn't apply to just ND, but may apply
> questions of fragmentation, header compression, security, etc.
I worry about the under/over debate. It seems that with all the effort
and enthusiasm in ROLL, we might be well-served at the moment by
focusing on helping them be successful with route-over than spending too
much of our time on route-under.
>
> - I hesitate a bit that we suggest possible solutions to ND in the
> charter ("reusing the 802.15.4 network structure (use the
> coordinators)") especially since the definition of such link
> mechanisms are still in motion within the IEEE. It seems more
> productive to me if we can develop mechanisms that are less dependent
> on the specific structure of 802.15.4 mechanisms.
I agree that we should develop mechanisms that could work generically
whenever possible.
- Mark
>
> Rest of the charter looks good to me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Jonathan Hui
>
>
>
> On May 16, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>
>> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>> Hi Mark:
>>>
>>> I think we need a work item (usually implicit) around the concept of
>>> improving existing WG RFCs. RFC 4944 can be improved in several
>>> aspects:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> - A major one is a better fit with ISA100.11a. Getting ISA100.11a to
>>> conform to 6LoWPAN would be a major win, but is certainly not a given.
>>> At the moment, the ISA100.11a documents expose discrepencies with RFC
>>> 4944 that http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-6lowpan-hc resolve
>>> for the most part.
>>>
>> Are the resolutions backwards compatible with RFC 4944? I'm eager to
>> improve RFC 4944, but not eager to endorse changes that inhibit
>> interoperability.
>>> - The issue of fragmentation. Applying RFC 4944 over a multihop radio
>>> mesh exposes the network to congestion collapse, as described in
>>> http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-simple-fragment-rec
>>>
>>> overy . I think that the WG should dedicate some bandwitdth to provide
>>> additional functions that would improve the LoWPAN operation WRT flow
>>> control and recovery of fragments.
>>>
>> Fragmentation, OK, but why is flow control a network layer issue rather
>> than a transport layer issue?
>>> Another aspect of ISA100.11a is the concept of a backbone router. It
>>> would be appropriate that the IETF comes up with a proposal to
>>> implement
>>> the concept in the IPv6 world. This partially falls under the first
>>> work
>>> item on ND but might also include ND proxy over the backbone which is a
>>> stretch to the work item. More in
>>> http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router.
>>>
>> Well, don't we need to define what ND looks like on a lowpan before we
>> decide whether it needs to be proxied or not?
>>
>> - Mark
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Pascal
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>>>
>>> Behalf Of Mark Townsley
>>>
>>>> (townsley)
>>>> Sent: jeudi 15 mai 2008 23:02
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Subject: [6lowpan] New charter for 6lowpan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to ask the group one final time for comments on the proposed
>>>> new charter. I've also asked the ROLL WG chairs to comment.
>>>>
>>>> As I said before, soon after the format document was published, there
>>>>
>>> is
>>>
>>>> nothing stopping the WG from discussing and working on new and
>>>> existing
>>>> items at this time. In fact, activity helps us to decide what
>>>> should be
>>>> in and out of the charter. Please do not construe not having a charter
>>>> in place as a reason not to update drafts, or discuss topics that need
>>>> to be discussed. Just as when we have BoF's and mailing lists before
>>>> creating a new WG, it is good to have WG meetings and on-lists
>>>> discussions when creating new WG charters.
>>>>
>>>> - Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6lowpan mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>
>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
