[15:54:16] --- pete.stpierre@gmail.com has joined
[16:06:22] --- yigarashi has joined
[16:06:28] --- yigarashi has left
[16:07:19] --- yigarashi has joined
[16:07:44] --- frodek has joined
[16:08:14] --- pee has joined
[16:08:41] --- tom5760@gmail.com has joined
[16:08:44] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> meeting starts
[16:09:12] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> IPR -- note well -- if you haven't read it, please do
[16:09:36] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> christian schumacher has stepped down as WG secretary. need a new volunteer
[16:10:18] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> agenda bashing
[16:10:25] --- yowada has joined
[16:10:35] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> carsten borman speaking -- what is 6lowpan overview
[16:10:56] --- kakima has joined
[16:11:08] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> adapt. layer to run IP6 over interesting L2 network (802.15.4)
[16:11:12] --- soyoung has joined
[16:11:39] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> ian chakras @ mike
[16:11:54] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> why are link/mesh routing highlighted
[16:12:08] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CB: just to call attention. link == 2460 link
[16:12:34] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CB: interesting on how you make a link out of 15.4 elements
[16:13:14] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> WG will not do routing-- BUT will look at requirements
[16:13:23] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CB: proposals for changes to agenda?
[16:13:26] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> none.
[16:13:40] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> recharter status: Geoff Mulligan speaking
[16:13:58] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> recharter submitted (see list for content)
[16:14:13] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> accidentally left of routing requirements
[16:14:43] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> 5 items listed on agenda are basic layout of new charter.
[16:15:01] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Mark(AD) speaking
[16:15:59] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> AD: WG needs to actively read & express support on list before it's taken to IESG
[16:16:23] --- intvelt has joined
[16:16:23] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> low show of hands on reading. GO READ, PLEASE (Geoff)
[16:17:29] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Carsten reviewing 5 areas (see slides)
[16:17:38] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> slides 7-11
[16:18:02] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> JP Vasser speaks:
[16:18:18] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> what is meant n item 4 (slide 10)
[16:18:19] --- gnaik has joined
[16:18:53] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CB: look at specific application and explain how 6lowpan (and other protos) would apply (informational doc)
[16:20:04] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM: MUST read & accept charter to keep with IETF policy. (Strong pleading from geoff).
[16:20:37] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CB & GM to rev document and resend to the list. Please read and provide input
[16:21:15] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> AD: how many people interested (reasonable show of hands)
[16:22:08] --- john.zhao has joined
[16:22:21] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> segment2: current IDs
[16:23:04] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> review of expired drafts & active drafts
[16:23:57] --- gnaik has left
[16:24:19] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> drafts related to mesh under/route over are currently out of scope.
[16:24:28] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> routing requirements is applicable
[16:25:34] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> hc1g may roll into current format doc
[16:25:59] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> interop draft may not fit, but it's unclear where fit is in current charter
[16:28:46] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> WG chairs meeting stresses manageability -- do we need to add a MIB document?
[16:29:09] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> AD: MIBs should be a milestone.
[16:29:30] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> AD: interop may be in charter text, but isn't really a goal/milestone.
[16:30:33] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Jonathan Hui: on the list there is discussion of interop requirements -- how does that fit into charter
[16:30:35] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> ?
[16:31:17] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CB: useful to have a document from people doing implementation on where the pitfalls are
[16:32:35] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> AD: note - this is the kind of data you need to progress down the standards path.
[16:34:22] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> AD: no objection on deviating from base IPv6 spec, but must go through IETF process where deviation occurs
[16:34:39] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM: where do we track this? Arch document? another standards doc?
[16:34:50] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> AD/GM/CB will brainstorm off line.
[16:35:34] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> AD: will see if it must be information or standard track doc.
[16:35:40] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> next point segment 3:
[16:35:46] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Architecture doc(David Culler)
[16:36:16] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> DC speaking:
[16:36:31] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> fill out operational framework based on 4944 packet format
[16:37:04] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> document guides the realization of IP6 over lowpan.
[16:37:44] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> (see slides for details): https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/70/materials.html
[16:39:07] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> PAN Org vs. Link spec or IP architecture
[16:39:15] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> mesh/no mesh
[16:39:31] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> 15.4 issues:
[16:39:53] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> 64//16 addressing modes, small MTU, incomplete broadcast domain
[16:40:18] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> range is only 1 reason BCD is limited (pan id, channel hopping,etc)
[16:41:53] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> addressing perspective takes IP6 down to 15.4
[16:43:14] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> SA assignment
[16:43:31] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> only 1 SA16 per host
[16:45:16] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Link Local Mcast (slide)
[16:46:28] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> hc1g may break out LL compression
[16:46:44] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> routing(slide)
[16:47:53] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Ian Charkras: these mechanism aren't about routing, it's about configuration
[16:48:21] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> DC: it calls out ICMPv6 has what we need, we not implementing new mechanisms.
[16:48:33] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> IC: is intended for CBD
[16:48:49] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> DC: we need to make sure these things make sense in PDB
[16:49:49] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Tim Selo: great step forward. would like to see more on sleeping nodes. ought to define what Mcast and DAD means when many/most nodes slee
[16:49:52] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> sleep
[16:51:06] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> (discussion)
[16:52:54] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> we need to make sure the arch document accomodates/anticipates sleeping nodes
[16:53:38] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> arch doc will present options -- may not specify specific mapping of solution to individual detailed problems.
[16:54:02] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Erik Nordmark: 6lowpan not the only group w/ sleeping nodes. 16ng deals as well.
[16:54:05] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> next preso:
[16:54:25] --- kakima has left
[16:54:55] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> integration of 6Lopan into IP networks: Carl Williams presenting
[16:55:06] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CW speaks:
[16:55:22] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> DoD project IPv6 Support for NetCentric Ops Warfare
[16:55:35] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> draft provides various integration scenarios
[16:56:03] --- kakima has joined
[16:56:36] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Scenario 1(slide)
[16:59:21] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Scenario 2(slide)
[16:59:51] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> send enabled router/NEMO to "lowpan border router"
[17:01:54] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Conclusion: demonstrates ways in which IP can provide connectivity to Lowan nodes
[17:02:29] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM: CGA between AP and border router, not on the nodes
[17:02:48] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Gabe Montenegro: CSI bof tomorrow if interested in CGA
[17:03:17] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Gabe: are there any things in preso that are specific to 6lowpan or is this more generally applic.
[17:03:49] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Daniel Park: use cases to be part of charter?
[17:04:10] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM: "applicability ID" planned, this may fit.
[17:04:33] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Park: how to deal with mobility issues
[17:04:55] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM: startng preso of LowPan Backbone router (see next preso slides)
[17:05:10] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> ISA100 input:
[17:05:39] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> ISA100 decided to use 6lowpan/IP/UDB6/TFTP
[17:05:54] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> ISA100 - wireless system for industrial automation and proces control.
[17:06:28] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Intro to ISA100 (slide)
[17:07:04] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> defining DLL for mesh under (hybrid of CSMA/TDMA)
[17:08:25] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> reference model (picture slide)
[17:09:11] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> next slide
[17:09:20] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> DLL mesh diagram
[17:10:15] <john.zhao> julien come to mic
[17:10:39] <john.zhao> ignore previous please.
[17:11:36] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> packet flow to gaeway with IPv6 (slide)
[17:12:43] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> goals for the proposed ID: show a use case for industral wireless & discuss reqs for BB routers.
[17:12:55] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> leverage work done by Erik/Samita on ND.
[17:13:20] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> ND optimization/extention (slide)
[17:14:25] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> proposal: allow node to "claim" adress with Border router (binding cache)
[17:15:13] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> slide with binding update flow(slide)
[17:16:47] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> next steps (slide)
[17:17:04] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> solicit interst in ISA100 (ANSI group)
[17:17:23] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> should this work become part of bootstrap/commision ID?
[17:17:35] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Eri Nordmark(@mic):
[17:17:58] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> EN: I think you need to pass more info across layers in routing
[17:18:16] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> refer to slide 4-ish
[17:18:45] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> how to get off the network (at the IP level) without a lot of L2/3 info.
[17:19:02] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> must pass info from L2 mesh up.
[17:19:15] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM: does kind of happen within the DLL of SP100
[17:20:07] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM" graph routing and contact IDs to determine what happens.
[17:20:25] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> EN: wire & R items are also part of L2 mesh
[17:21:23] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> next preso: application reccomendations
[17:21:44] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Eunsook Kim presenting:
[17:22:37] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> last meeting recap (slide)
[17:24:24] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> update -01 (slide)
[17:25:33] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> 4 scenarios update, 2 more added. all reflect new parameters as well
[17:26:31] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Industrial monitoring scenario (2slides)
[17:29:01] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> connected home (slide)
[17:29:20] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> EK: would like people to read the draft and comment on the maiing list
[17:29:34] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> EK: dos the WG feel this document is useful
[17:30:18] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> what is the next step for this ID? more details? more scenarios?
[17:31:08] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Park(@mic): high level question - which is the appropriate place for publication of these issues
[17:32:09] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> AD: we want to avoid marketing documents. must be factual. informatin that is helpful for people building things
[17:33:00] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM(from mic): more depth needed. not more scenaios. understand specific application better.
[17:35:18] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> JP Vasseur(JP): would you take one scenario and work it through.
[17:35:25] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM & EK to work on this.
[17:35:47] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CB: 25 min left. move to commisioning draft:
[17:36:24] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Commissioning in 6lowpan Ki-Hyung Kim presenting:
[17:36:47] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> goals (slide 2)
[17:37:38] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> termnology (slide 3)
[17:38:55] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> bootstrapping(slide 4)
[17:39:25] --- john.zhao has left: Computer went to sleep
[17:42:39] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> next steps (slide 7)
[17:44:13] --- john.zhao has joined
[17:44:44] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> comments:
[17:45:05] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> DC: seems like it'd be nice to head in a consistent direction.
[17:45:31] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> to be a 6lowpan network, must be on certain 15.4 MAC features.
[17:45:59] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> to date, we've been specifically focused on format. If we're going to start requiring specific 15.4 MAC concepts, we need to state that.
[17:46:29] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Alternatively, we simply support ICMPv6 and we're done. we don't need to discuss details of ND, etc.
[17:47:08] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> (discussion)
[17:48:06] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM: if you don't like parts of the draft. make comments and help move the draft in a good direction.
[17:48:16] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> GM: get this on the list for all to discuss.
[17:49:19] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Jonathan Hui: how much in to L2 do we want to go? (as david said). How far do we go into ND and how does this play with other WGs?
[17:49:23] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> (autoconf)
[17:49:47] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> do we modify/compress their protocols? they don't really have one yet.
[17:50:26] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> EN: how much do we want to optimize? we need some MAC elements depending on what we're going to optimize. depends on what we want for contraints.
[17:50:34] --- ShoichiSakane has joined
[17:51:20] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> (more discussion)
[17:51:34] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> L2 concept of "anycast". as for RS.
[17:51:46] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> waste to wake everyone up to find a single router.
[17:52:34] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Kris Pfister: supporting what DC said. L2 stuff is tricky, but anything that ties to specific 15.4 MAC beaconing, etc. becomes a non-starter
[17:53:19] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Phil Levis: seems like a bad idea to design to optimize since we don't quite know what we have.
[17:53:33] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> let's get some experience, then design for opt.
[17:53:42] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> chairs; thank you. next preso.
[17:54:06] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Security Analysis: draft status
[17:54:46] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> -02 in process from Samita and Julien feedback. still in progress (next week?)
[17:54:52] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> draft outline (see slides)
[17:56:31] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> moving forward -- please provide more feedback (especially security guys)
[17:56:36] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> thank you.
[17:57:11] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> next preso: Routing Reqirements (D Kaspar)
[17:57:24] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> see slides
[17:58:02] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> discussion should not specifically state Mesh under or Route over
[17:58:33] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CB: jumps in. we need to move along. go read the draft. submit comments so we can push this to other groups.
[17:58:40] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Please come to R2LN BOF tomorrow.
[17:59:23] --- kakima has left
[17:59:31] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Kris Pfister: Stateful Header Compression (next preso)
[17:59:44] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> (slides)
[18:00:49] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> header example sizes (slides)
[18:01:18] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> draft in progress (call for help!)
[18:01:23] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> contact Kris Pfister
[18:01:40] --- yowada has left
[18:02:04] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CB: wrapping up meeting. please read/comment on drafts. we need to move them forward as we recharter
[18:02:15] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> CB. thank you all
[18:02:31] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> Salon 1 for Interop demo of 6lowpan (now)
[18:02:36] <pete.stpierre@gmail.com> meeting closed.
[18:02:39] --- pete.stpierre@gmail.com has left
[18:02:44] --- soyoung has left
[18:03:23] --- tom5760@gmail.com has left
[18:05:06] --- john.zhao has left
[18:11:08] --- intvelt has left
[18:15:05] --- frodek has left
[18:20:32] --- ShoichiSakane has left
[19:09:42] --- yigarashi has left
[19:31:18] --- pee has left