It didn't seem to be a priority item.
Perhaps we should consider incorporating the Use Cases into the
architecture document. If not then I think once we complete the few
documents we should then revisit the use cases.
geoff
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 10:49 +0900, Eunsook "Eunah" Kim 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
