Same question.
On 6/12/08 3:49 AM, "Eunsook "Eunah" Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
