Hi,
In my opinion the new charter is good, although I would of course liked
to have seen the bootstrapping/ND optimization timeline to be quite a
bit faster. But I guess the process is slow as it is going as a proposed
standard?
One clarification:
Is 4. "Use Cases for 6LoWPAN" the place where such a minimal
6lowpan/IPv6 profile, for example use cases, be defined? Pascal and I
were talking about this on the list last week.
Or is the "implementor's guide" ID the correct place for describing the
minimal profile?
In my opinion either place could do.. We just need something to show
other groups in a reasonable time (an RFC), so for that reason 4. would
be a better place as the implementor's guide may go through 22 revisions
over 5 years ;-)
Contributions:
Personally I'd like to contribute to the implementor's guide and interop
IDs, along with the "Use Cases for 6lowpan".
- Zach
Carsten Bormann wrote:
Lowpanners,
Geoff and I have updated the charter proposal based on Marks input and
yesterday's discussion.
Now would be a good time for comments, in particular also on the
timelines we are promising.
Separately, we would like to know which of the items you are interested
in contributing to -- please volunteer now.
Gruesse, Carsten
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
--
Zach Shelby | CTO | +358 40 7796297
Sensinode Ltd. www.sensinode.com
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
