Hello, [Routing Requirements] As far as I remember, at the IETF-69 we have made the decision to formulate the 6lowpan-specific routing requirements and feed them into a hopefully soon existing ROLL working group. Also in IETF-70, everyone seemed to agree that this is the way to go, so I don't know why suddenly scepsis is raised again. Having 6lowpan based on IEEE 802.15.4, which differentiates between different device types/roles, or the assumption that 6lowpans are not transit networks, are only two examples of what creates sufficient difference to the routing requirement drafts in ROLL.
[6lowpan/IPv6 Profiling] It has been suggested to merge a minimal 6lowpan/IPv6 profile into the "Use Cases for 6lowpan" item. In my opinion, the timeline for the "Use Cases" document is already set quite generously, while I estimate the work needed for defining such a minimal profile to be rather extensive... Also, topicwise the two items are not well matched. The "Use Cases" documents is aimed to provide a high-level application overview, while a profile document would give very low-level information and would fit much better into a "LoWPAN node requirements for IPv6" document that Pascal has suggested (please correct me if I misunderstood). Best regards, Dominik On 12/7/07, Carsten Bormann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
