6LO BOF Minutes
---------------

Scribe: Zach Shelby

Problem Space Introduction - Chairs
	- New 6LoWPAN over Foo have no home
	- MIBs still needed for these

Proposed Charter - Chairs
	- Adaptation layer specs for constrained node networks
	- Related MIB work
	- Common infrastructure mechanisms such as header compression
	- Maintenance and informational documents 
	- Charter Scope:
		- Small, focused pieces of INT area work
		- No large cross-layer efforts
		- No security mechanisms
	- Cooperation with other WGs
		- Main coordination with 6man
		- Coordination with LWIG, CORE, ROLL

Drafts related to 6LO - Carsten Bormann
	- 6LoWPAN over Z-Wave
	- 6LoWPAN over DECT ULE
	- 6LoWPAN over RS485
	- MIB specification for 6LoWPAN
	- General header compression (GHC)
	- Header compression for IPSec
	- Mesh Link Enablement (MLE)
	- Backbone Router 
	- Optimizing fragment (re)transmission
	- Out of scope: Bootstrapping in constrained networks
	- Adaptation layer fragmentation indication
	- 6LoWPAN roadmap

Erik Nordmark: There is a 6LoWPAN-ND style extension to IPv6 in 6MAN, and it is tied in with Backbone Router, that might be done in 6MAN as well. 

Samita: Is there any intention to define a generic architecture for IPv6 over low-power devices?

Ulrich (Chair): We probably want to avoid talking about architecture, not getting into subnet and other issues. 

Ralph (Chair): Agreeing with Ulrich.

Carsten: Architecture document was on the list for a long time in 6LoWPAN but it never got completed. Roadmap serves this purpose somewhat. 

Anders Brandt: We are seeing a trend in the 6LoWPAN over Foo documents anyways. 

Robert: Is there going to be an attempt to describe how to combine a bunch of these 6LoWPAN networks together? Might that be in scope?

Ralph (hat off): IP(v6) routing already takes care of this. Is there some specific engineering that has to be done, I don't know. 

Anij: A lessons learned document would be very useful, e.g. in the roadmap. 

Michael Richardson (Jabber): We can't have a generic architecture as there are too many combinations of how the architecture will be used.

Charlie Perkins: What about technologies like restricting device duty-cycle? 

Erik Nordmark: We looked at sleepy nodes and 6LoWPAN ND, but people thought it didn't belong to the IP layer. 

Ralph: Optimized ND does what it can at the IP layer, but sometimes you need to do things at other layers. 

Charlie: Are we talking about subnets or links? 

Zach/Erik: We defined how to deal with this in 6LoWPAN ND already.

Rene: We should really look at the fragmentation recovery issue and also header 
compression. Not sure if the general header compression is the best approach?

Ulrich (Chair): The presented drafts are not necessarily what we'll adopt, that needs discussion.

Pascal: Zach had a more focused definition, which was better. 

Zach: We need to focus only on 6LoWPAN over Foo, and only on the application of 
existing 6LoWPAN HC and ND to those Foo. 

Dave Thaler: Do you think everyone understands what the term constrained node is? 

Emmanuel: There is already a definition of that in LWIG. 

Carsten: Reference my LWIG terminology document that defines these terms. 

Erik: We also only apply 6LoWPAN technology. 

Ralph: Needs to be the intersection of 6LoWPAN and constrained.

Ralph: Summarizing the changes needed to the charter:
	- Sleeping devices doesn't belong to this charter
	- No issues with subnets and links, done in ND
	- Fragmentation is important
	- Compression is important, specific vs. general needs discussion
	- Scope:
		- Terminology uses LWIG constrained node
		- Only IP over Foo with 6LoWPAN, and not modifying 6LoWPAN HC/ND

Q: Do you think the IETF should work on this?
- Lots of hums

Q: Do you think the IETF should not work on this?
- No hums

Q: Not enough information?
- A few hums

Q: Do you agree with the charter as modified today?
- Lots of hums

Q: Do you disagree?
- No hums

Q: Do you not know enough to make a conclusion: 
- A few hums

Q: How many are willing to comment on documents?
- ~30

Q: How many are willing to edit documents?
- ~10

Q: How many are willing to implement?
- ~25