Geoff,
Looks reasonable from the WG perspective. Sure, we should complete
both deliverables. I will revisit the relevant thread especially mesh
of format document for further details... Thanks your quick reply.
On 10/16/06, Geoff Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel,
There is no next. We cannot do anything new until we complete the two
documents. We have completed the problem statement and I feel that we
have consensus on the document.
On the format document I do not feel we have reached consensus on how to
"fix" the mesh delivery field issue nor some of the significant points
that David Culler brought up about diagnostics and future capabilities.
Folks, if we can't solve these on the list before the meeting I suspect
that we will spend the entire hour on just trying to get consensus on
this one document.
Please every speak up on your thoughts about the mesh delivery field and
David Culler's email.
Speak now or nothing new at the next ietf!
geoff
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 10:08 +0900, Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
> 6lowpan WG,
>
> AFAIC, 1-hour slot is just assigned to the 6lowpan meeting in San
> Diego. I am curious what will happen in the limited space. Obviously,
> we will have at least 30 minutes for the WGLC issues regarding both
> deliverables to move them forward, and at least 10 minutes for the
> agenda bashing and introductory... Also, I didn't see any notice from
> the WG (e.g., call for contribution or issue...) What next ?
>
>
--
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
