Hi Geoff,
On 5/30/08 9:32 PM, "Geoff Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could item 3 - the architecture work item include the requirements for > mesh under as mentioned by Jonathan and should that be a single > document? > If OK with you, I would prefer to keep the mesh-under routing requirements separate from the architecture ID. Once we WG will have converged on this topic, this could be added. Thanks. JP. >> From Pascal I inferred that we would postpone item 2 and the HC1g would > fall under updates to 4944. > > geoff > > On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 04:25 +0200, JP Vasseur wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Just a suggestion for the chairs and the WG. >> >> We have discussed many important items for 6lowpan. >> >> For several of them, all important, I think that there was a clear >> agreement: statefull header compression, security, Architecture ID, >> fragmentation, ..... For other ones such as the ³Mesh-under² and >> ³Route over² discussion, there are diverging point of views. >> >> So why not trying to quickly re-charter adding the items for which >> there is a consensus and continue the discussion on the open issues in >> the meantime until we have an agreement at which point the WG may >> re-charter ? >> >> As we all know, the WG has been fairly slow in term of progress and it >> is I think now urgent to move on. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Thanks. >> >> JP. >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
