Dear Otto,
I share the same viewpoint stated by Guy. I think that a new WG is preferable for handling the sensor and ad hoc networks issues.
Best regards,
Neuman. _________________________________________________ UFC-DC - Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil neuman@ufc.br - Phone: +55 85 288-9853.
Citando Guy Pujolle Guy.Pujolle@lip6.fr:
Otto, I agree with you: sensor networks and ad hoc networks are very important fields and cannot be introduced easily in current WG. The closest working group is WG6.8 but the problems are différent. I vote for the introduction of a new WG to take care of this field. Best regards, Guy _______________________________________________ Guy.Pujolle@lip6.fr - LIP6-CNRS - Université Paris 6 Assistante: Laetitia.Jacquey@lip6.fr, Tel: +33 1 44 27 87 74
----- Original Message ----- From: "Otto Spaniol" spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de To: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:59 AM Subject: [ifip-tc6] Sensor and actor networks
Dear all,
Ramon informed me that WG 6.3 is discussing a co-sponsorship of IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems,
June
30 - July 1, 2005 in Marina del Rey, California, USA.
The question is what TC6 can or should do in that respect. Sensor and Actor Networks are hot topics as well as ubiquitous
networks
or pervasive computing etc.
Until now we have our MedHoc series (Mediterranean Adhoc Network
series)
but this may not be enough for the mass of newly emerging topics. For the international seminar institute in Dagstuhl we got not less than four (!) applications for respective seminars for the first half of 2005 with the following titles:
- cognitive networks and radios
- form and content in sensor networks
- ad-hoc geosensor networks in traffic assessment
- data always and everywhere - Management of Mobile, Ubiquitous,
Pervasive,
and sensor data. Several other proposals have been more or less related to these
topics.
What is your feeling?
- Can we avoid to deal with these fields? (I don't think so).
- Should we establish a larger specialized event? (One ore two
particular
sessions at the occasion of Networking 200x will probably not be
enough).
- Which working group should be responsible? Or: Should we organise
the
first event by TC6 and should we try to establish a WG 6.xx
thereafter?
Or: Would it be enough to distribute the new topics among existing
WG's
since obviously WG 6.1, 6.6, 6.8 and maybe others are involved?
** Please comment **.
Of course, this topic will be on the agenda of meeting 2004/2.
Best regards Otto
ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6