Daniel, I don't understand what you are saying. On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 08:06 +0900, 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.
What do you mean "this deliverable"? What deliverable, "layer 2 mesh"? Never were we chartered to define a Proposed Standard for layer 2 meshing". If that is what you are saying, then I agree. As originally chartered we were not to write a proposed standard for layer 2 mesh. I stated in my message, as stated in the original charter, that the WG might look at layer 2 routing (mesh under) alternatives, such as those available from manet or 802.15.5. > > 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. I don't think that I mis-interpreted our original charter. If you read the WG documents they represent the concept of mesh under (layer 2 routing) and not routing over IP, but either way, it was very clear that routing protocols were never intended to be a part of 6lowpan work. > > Also, IEEE 802.15.5 is already developing L2 mesh > routing for IEEE 802.15.4. What alternative means > in your mention ? I know that 15.5 is working on Layer 2 meshing and the working group should look at that as well as the other proposals that are consistent with MANET. > > -- Daniel Park _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
