Hi Geoff, Pascal's analysis of prioritizing items makes sense to me.
On 5/30/08, 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? > A summary of mesh-under requirements is needed in the architecture document even if we decide to have a separate elaborate document afterwards. Thanks, -Samita > > 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 "Mesh-under" and > > "Route over" 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 > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
