On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2011, at 23:46, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
>>  Now we have LWIP which will on similar issues. In view of that I am not sure
>> if this is still needed.
>
> Citing from a random draft LWIG charter (datatracker doesn't seem to have a 
> final one yet):
>
>> The purpose of the LWIG working group is to collect experiences from
>> existing small IP stacks with regards to protocol implementation
>> techniques and other details that have been useful in deployments. The
>> group shall focus only on techniques that have been used in actual
>> implementations and do not impact interoperability with other devices.
>> The techniques shall also not affect conformance to the relevant
>> specifications. The output of this work is a document that describes
>> implementation techniques for reducing complexity, memory footprint, or
>> power usage. The main focus is in the IPv4, IPv6, UDP, TCP, ICMPv4/v6,
>> MLD/IGMP, ND, DHCPv4/v6, IPsec, 6LOWPAN, and RPL protocols.
>
> So the LWIG output is intended to be descriptive, about implementation 
> techniques, not affecting interoperability.
>
> The 6LoWPAN implementers guide I started to write explains how to properly 
> use the 6LoWPAN protocols, in a way that is intended > to be more 
> prescriptive than descriptive, very much impacting (i.e., improving) 
> interoperability, and potentially ultimately leading to >revised versions of 
> the specifications.  Again, cf. RFC 4815 for an example for where this can 
> lead.

The descriptive part of this document would be covered by/merged to
the output of the LWIG.  And the roadmap document, if exactly as
implied by the name, is okay for 6lowpan.  But I do expect you can
output the guideline part (e.g., MTU section) to the LWIG document,
and we surely will collaborate with each other on the topic.

>
> While it is possible there will be some overlap in the fringe areas between 
> the two, with a little bit of forethought that can be controlled.
> And, yes, I'd expect LWIG to be a working group that we want to closely 
> collaborate with, both with respect to this guide and with respect to the 
> other 6LoWPAN documents.

-- 
Best regards,
Zhen
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

Reply via email to