Skip to main content

IPv6 over networks of resource-constrained nodes
charter-ietf-6lo-01

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-03-25
01 Cindy Morgan Responsible AD changed to Erik Kline from Suresh Krishnan
2018-01-30
01 Amy Vezza Responsible AD changed to Suresh Krishnan from Brian Haberman
2015-10-14
01 (System) Notify list changed from 6lo@ietf.org to (None)
2013-10-11
01 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-6lo-01.txt
2013-10-11
00-06 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved from IESG review
2013-10-11
00-06 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the charter
2013-10-11
00-06 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2013-10-11
00-06 Cindy Morgan Closed "Ready for external review" ballot
2013-10-11
00-06 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2013-10-11
00-05 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2013-10-11
00-05 Cindy Morgan New version to fix line breaks.
2013-10-11
00-06 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-6lo-00-06.txt
2013-10-11
00-05 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot comment]
thank you for addressing by point.
2013-10-11
00-05 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Stiemerling has been changed to No Objection from Block
2013-10-11
00-05 Brian Haberman New version available: charter-ietf-6lo-00-05.txt
2013-10-10
00-04 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
The discussion went in the right direction. I trust Brian will take of my BLOCK. Cleared now.

Via email, Carsten proposed: "I think …
[Ballot comment]
The discussion went in the right direction. I trust Brian will take of my BLOCK. Cleared now.

Via email, Carsten proposed: "I think the decision that the current one will be a MIB module should be in the milestones, and the charter should say how we arrive at these decisions."

The proposed milestones addition would be a plus.
2013-10-10
00-04 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Block
2013-10-10
00-04 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-10-10
00-04 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-10-10
00-04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-10-10
00-04 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Via email, Carsten proposed: "I think the decision that the current one will be a MIB module should be in the milestones, and …
[Ballot comment]
Via email, Carsten proposed: "I think the decision that the current one will be a MIB module should be in the milestones, and the charter should say how we arrive at these decisions."

The proposed milestones addition would be a plus.
2013-10-10
00-04 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2013-10-10
00-04 Benoît Claise
[Ballot block]
I have no general concern about chartering this WG but I would like to see a
clarification with respect to this point:

"6lo …
[Ballot block]
I have no general concern about chartering this WG but I would like to see a
clarification with respect to this point:

"6lo focuses on Internet Area work that is needed for constrained node
networks with the characteristics of:"

What does Internet Area work mean?
Btw, you want a MIB module, should we add OPS in there?
Proposal: remove "Internet Area"

Same remark for "6lo works on small, focused pieces of Internet Area work."
It clashes with

    2. Information and data models (e.g., MIB modules) for these
    adaptation layers for basic monitoring and troubleshooting.
2013-10-10
00-04 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Via email, Carsten proposed: "I think the decision that the current one will be a MIB module should be in the milestones, and …
[Ballot comment]
Via email, Carsten proposed: "I think the decision that the current one will be a MIB module should be in the milestones, and the charter should say how we arrive at these decisions."

The proposed milestones are not present.
2013-10-10
00-04 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-10-10
00-04 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2013-10-09
00-04 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2013-10-09
00-04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-10-09
00-04 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-10-09
00-04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-10-09
00-04 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-10-09
00-04 Martin Stiemerling
[Ballot block]
I have no general concern about chartering this WG but I would like to see a clarification with respect to this point:

"3. …
[Ballot block]
I have no general concern about chartering this WG but I would like to see a clarification with respect to this point:

"3. Specifications, such as header compression, that are applicable to more
than one adaptation layer specification"

Has there been any work or concerns discussed to see what's already out there, e.g., in the old ROHC WG (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rohc/charter/)?

Especially the documents describing how to do header compression for various levels in the protocol stack:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rohc/
2013-10-09
00-04 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-10-08
00-04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-10-08
00-04 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-10-08
00-04 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-10-08
00-04 Brian Haberman Created "Approve" ballot
2013-10-08
00-04 Brian Haberman State changed to IESG review from External review
2013-10-08
00-04 Brian Haberman New version available: charter-ietf-6lo-00-04.txt
2013-09-23
00-03 Cindy Morgan Telechat date has been changed to 2013-10-10 from 2013-08-29
2013-09-23
00-03 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2013-09-23
00-03 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2013-09-23
00-03 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2013-09-20
00-03 Brian Haberman State changed to External review from Internal review
2013-09-18
00-03 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my concern
2013-09-18
00-03 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Block
2013-09-13
00-03 Adrian Farrel [Ballot comment]
Thanks for working with me to clear my Discuss and address my Comments
2013-09-13
00-03 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Block
2013-09-13
00-03 Brian Haberman New version available: charter-ietf-6lo-00-03.txt
2013-09-13
00-02 Brian Haberman New version available: charter-ietf-6lo-00-02.txt
2013-09-09
00-01 Brian Haberman Notification list changed to 6lo@ietf.org
2013-08-29
00-01 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot block]
This is a significant improvement, but a tighter definition of a constrained node needs to be provided than the one in the draft …
[Ballot block]
This is a significant improvement, but a tighter definition of a constrained node needs to be provided than the one in the draft which simply points to a WG.
2013-08-29
00-01 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to Block from No Record
2013-08-29
00-01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-08-28
00-01 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2013-08-28
00-01 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-08-28
00-01 Brian Haberman New version available: charter-ietf-6lo-00-01.txt
2013-08-28
00-00 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-08-28
00-00 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
I agree with Adrian's concern and reserve my position until I see updated charter text.
2013-08-28
00-00 Stewart Bryant Ballot comment text updated for Stewart Bryant
2013-08-27
00-00 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Adrian that the draft shouldn't be main impetus for a charter.  If it is, then I think we can't charter …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Adrian that the draft shouldn't be main impetus for a charter.  If it is, then I think we can't charter this until the lwig terminology is actually approved and maybe even published.

In addition, I think the following could be tightened up:

6Lo will
coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas that focus on
constrained node networks, such as today ROLL (RTG) and CoRE (APP), and
appropriate groups in the IETF OPS and Security areas including potential future
groups spawned from efforts such as COMAN and SOLACE.

Maybe:

6Lo will
coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas that focus on
constrained node networks, such as today ROLL (RTG) and CoRE (APP).

For #4, is there maintenance needed already or is that future proofing the charter?  Also, what information documents are needed - are there some already written?

a) It's just an example,  b) you don't actually need to list everything, and c) COMAN and SOLACE might not happen.

Also, isn't it s2.3 in draft-ietf-lwig-terminology that defines "Constrained Node Networks" not s2.1 and s2.2?
2013-08-27
00-00 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-08-27
00-00 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot comment]
in full support of what Adrian wrote in his ballot.
2013-08-27
00-00 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-08-25
00-00 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
I'm a No Objection. I understand Adrian's Discuss about using the LWIG draft to define the working group scope, but I'm assuming this …
[Ballot comment]
I'm a No Objection. I understand Adrian's Discuss about using the LWIG draft to define the working group scope, but I'm assuming this will be addressed (whether by just using words like "constrained" in their normal sense, or by finding a more stable reference).

I'm not reading the current text as saying that "TCP over IPv6 over foo" would be in scope, but wonder whether using a term like "IPv6 encapsulation over foo" would be helpful in addressing Adrian's Comment.
2013-08-25
00-00 Spencer Dawkins Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins
2013-08-25
00-00 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
I'm a No Objection. I understand Adrian's discuss about using the LWIG draft to define the working group scope, but I'm assuming this …
[Ballot comment]
I'm a No Objection. I understand Adrian's discuss about using the LWIG draft to define the working group scope, but I'm assuming this can be addressed (whether by just using words like "constrained" in their normal sense, or by finding a more stable reference).

I don't think "TCP over IPv6 over foo" would be in scope, but wonder whether using a term like "IPv6 encapsulation over foo" would be helpful.
2013-08-25
00-00 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-08-25
00-00 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
My other concerns are considerably addressed by the last two paragraphs, but
would, I think benefit from some word-smithing...


        …
[Ballot comment]
My other concerns are considerably addressed by the last two paragraphs, but
would, I think benefit from some word-smithing...


                                                                                         
"IPv6-over-foo specifications" is particularly loose.  TCP is a something-over-IP-over-foo
technology.  Can the proposed working group work on it?  What about enhancements
to TCP to take account of the constrained nature of the under-lying network?

It is possible that this work is intended to be scoped to foo being one of the
technologies covered by RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775, but that is not clear.

---

  Common infrastructure specifications, such as header compression,
  specific to constrained node networks

Maybe "common infrastructure" has a specific meaning in the Internet Area, but
some people might assume that a routing protocol was a common infrastructure :-)
I would, for example, consider mesh-under routing protocols to be suspect within
this scope, but would find it hard to scope them out witthese words.

If you have other things in mind, it might be good to list them. If header
compression is the only one, then perhaps change the to talk only about that.

Maybe also be careful to narrow down which headers you mean.

---

Nit...

s/MIBs/MIB modules/                                                                                 
And maybe you want to say for what purpose. Many folk feel they are obliged to write
MIB modules these days, but don't really know why they are doing it.
2013-08-25
00-00 Adrian Farrel Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel
2013-08-25
00-00 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot block]
My main concern is that it is not appropriate for a charter to give, as a key
reference scoping its work, a pointer …
[Ballot block]
My main concern is that it is not appropriate for a charter to give, as a key
reference scoping its work, a pointer to an Internet-Draft.  This is not only
the case because I-Ds contain boiler-plate saying that it is inappropriate to
cite them, but also because the definitions in the referenced I-D are currently
under debate and the subject of an IESG Discuss.
2013-08-25
00-00 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
My other concerns are considerably addressed by the last two paragraphs, but
would, I think benefit from some word-smithing...


        …
[Ballot comment]
My other concerns are considerably addressed by the last two paragraphs, but
would, I think benefit from some word-smithing...


                                                                                         
"IPv6-over-foo specifications" is particularly loose.  TCP is an IP-over-foo
technology.  Can the proposed working group work on it?  What about enhancements
to TCP to take account of the constrained nature of the under-lying network?

It is possible that this work is intended to be scoped to foo being one of the
technologies covered by RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775, but that is not clear.

---

  Common infrastructure specifications, such as header compression,
  specific to constrained node networks

Maybe "common infrastructure" has a specific meaning in the Internet Area, but
some people might assume that a routing protocol was a common infrastructure :-)
I would, for example, consider mesh-under routing protocols to be suspect within
this scope, but would find it hard to scope them out witthese words.

If you have other things in mind, it might be good to list them. If header
compression is the only one, then perhaps change the to talk only about that.

Maybe also be careful to narrow down which headers you mean.

---

Nit...

s/MIBs/MIB modules/                                                                                 
And maybe you want to say for what purpose. Many folk feel they are obliged to write
MIB modules these days, but don't really know why they are doing it.
2013-08-25
00-00 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-08-24
00-00 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-08-23
00-00 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-08-23
00-00 Brian Haberman Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-08-29
2013-08-23
00-00 Brian Haberman WG action text was changed
2013-08-23
00-00 Brian Haberman WG review text was changed
2013-08-23
00-00 Brian Haberman Created "Ready for external review" ballot
2013-08-23
00-00 Brian Haberman State changed to Internal review from Informal IESG review
2013-08-20
00-00 Brian Haberman Responsible AD changed to Brian Haberman
2013-08-20
00-00 Brian Haberman Initial review time expires 2013-08-27
2013-08-20
00-00 Brian Haberman State changed to Informal IESG review from Not currently under review
2013-08-20
00-00 Brian Haberman New version available: charter-ietf-6lo-00-00.txt