Hi Geoff,
On 6/12/08 4:49 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was clear that items: 1(ND), 3(Architecture) and 5(Security) were > priority items. It was less clear to the three of us that use cases > were a priority item. > > It sounds like we have people that would like to continue to work on the > use cases and that completing them in parallel to the other efforts > would be a "good thing". > > What schedule do the authors anticipate completing the document? Well hopefully you do not require to terminate the document before it becomes a WG item ;-) To answer your question, it is already the second revision, the third revision will be posted before Dublin and we'll be having a fairly stable ID. Thanks. JP. > > geoff > > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 16:06 +0200, Mark Townsley 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. >>> 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
