> It was my understanding that while 6lowpan may consider "mesh under" > alternatives (layer 2 routing), it would rely upon a group > like RSN to deal with "route over" (layer 3 routing) and that > 6lowpan would provide requirements to RSN.
I don't think so Geoff. Originally, this deliverable was for Proposed Standard Document. Are you saying 6lowpan mesh-routing requirement might be Proposed Standard ? Absolutely, NO. I don't care if you as chair are leaning to RSN for this matter based on AD's agreement, but just wanted to clarify your mis-interpretation from 6lowpan perspevtive. Also, IEEE 802.15.5 is already developing L2 mesh routing for IEEE 802.15.4. What alternative means in your mention ? -- Daniel Park _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
