Geoff,

6LoWPAN use-case was always in the recharter items, and there was no
objection on it. Any reason to take it out?
Thanks for the good work.

-eunah

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Geoff Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After reviewing the comments on the list and talking with Carsten and
> Mark, we have come up with the following text for the Charter.
>
> We hope (and think) that this reflects the input from the group and Mark
> plans to take this to the IESG for rechartering approval.
>
> We've had some excellent discussion on a few topics and this is great.
> There is no reason why we should stop the discussion and work while Mark
> handles the rechartering.
>
> 1. I think that the work is proceeding on the Security Analysis document
> 2. We have the current HC1G draft.  The issue being discussed is the
> "compression" of the UDP checksum and it's impact on the end-to-end
> model.  I would like to hear more input and discussion on this.  Please
> speak up if you have thoughts on this.
> 3. We have some initial input on the Architecture document and I would
> like to hear from anyone that would volunteer to continue to work on
> this document.
>
>        geoff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>
>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

Reply via email to