On Jun 21, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Daniel Park wrote:
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.
There is no such deliverables ...
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.
Daniel, as you know 6lowpan is about to recharter ...
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
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
