Hi Geoff: There was a clear support for the group on my proposal from May 30th.
Now you took out: - 6LoWPAN use-case as Eunah points out - and the larger work on improving 6LowPAN operation (fragment recovery and whatelse) You need to explain why. There is advanced work on both and people willing to do the job. Pascal >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Mulligan >Sent: mercredi 11 juin 2008 21:03 >To: 6lowpan >Subject: [6lowpan] new charter text > >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
