Hi Mark,
On 6/12/08 4:06 PM, "Mark Townsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoff Mulligan wrote: >> It didn't seem to be a priority item. >> >> Perhaps we should consider incorporating the Use Cases into the >> architecture document. > Whether the use-cases are in the arch document or separate is somewhat > orthogonal to whether they are chartered work right now. >> If not then I think once we complete the few >> documents we should then revisit the use cases. >> > I a missing why writing down use-cases is not a good thing to do sooner > rather than later. I don't think it should stop protocol work in its > tracks, but I see no indication right now that it would. As long as the > use-cases are considered informational and can run largely in parallel* > to the normative work at this stage, I don't know why we wouldn't pursue it. > > - Mark > > *If this were the very beginnings of 6lowpan, I would insist on > use-cases to help drive requirements, architecture, and finally solution > design. While we are somewhat past that stage, I do think they could > still be very useful to ROLL, as well as going forward as we continue to > debate the pros and cons of various optimizations. Absolutely ! The only (but useful) objective is to document 6lowpan application, informational ID of course. Thanks. JP. >> geoff >> >> >> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 10:49 +0900, Eunsook "Eunah" Kim wrote: >> >>> Geoff, >>> >>> 6LoWPAN use-case was always in the recharter items, and there was no >>> objection on it. Any reason to take it out? >>> Thanks for the good work. >>> >>> -eunah >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Geoff Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> After reviewing the comments on the list and talking with Carsten and >>>> Mark, we have come up with the following text for the Charter. >>>> >>>> We hope (and think) that this reflects the input from the group and Mark >>>> plans to take this to the IESG for rechartering approval. >>>> >>>> We've had some excellent discussion on a few topics and this is great. >>>> There is no reason why we should stop the discussion and work while Mark >>>> handles the rechartering. >>>> >>>> 1. I think that the work is proceeding on the Security Analysis document >>>> 2. We have the current HC1G draft. The issue being discussed is the >>>> "compression" of the UDP checksum and it's impact on the end-to-end >>>> model. I would like to hear more input and discussion on this. Please >>>> speak up if you have thoughts on this. >>>> 3. We have some initial input on the Architecture document and I would >>>> like to hear from anyone that would volunteer to continue to work on >>>> this document. >>>> >>>> geoff >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 6lowpan mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
