[...]The required work includes items in the following (incomplete) list:
* IP adaptation/Packet Formats and interoperability * Addressing schemes and address management * Network management * Routing in dynamically adaptive topologies * Security, including set-up and maintenance * Application programming interface * Discovery (of devices, of services, etc) * Implementation considerations
Whereas at least some of the above items are within the purview of the IETF, at this point it is not clear that all of them are. Accordingly, the LoWPAN working group will address a reduced, more focused set of objectives.
Scope of lowpan:
Produce "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 WPAN Networks" (draft-ietf-lowpan-ipv6-over-802.15.4-xx.txt) to define the basic packet formats and sub-IP adaptation layer for transmission of IPv6 packets over IEEE 802.15.4. This includes framing, adaptation, header compression, address generation and a simple but sufficient mechanism for ad hoc routing based on AODV.
Is IPv4 packet encapsulation specifically out of scope? Spell this out. Do IEEE and the other communities agree with this approach? (Not that I would disagree -- just hoping that someone else doesn't go on to invent the v4 adaptation if the IETF doesn't do it..)
Where was the determination made that adhoc routing and AODV in particular is the best fit in these scenarios? How is that relevant to the IPv6-over-layer2 adaptation? Would AODV be extended to route based on layer2 addressing? This seems to go out of scope of the main v6 over Lowpan spec.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf