Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Geoff: > > There was a clear support for the group on my proposal from May 30th. > I agree. My read of the list was that there was support for your proposal.
- Mark > 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 > > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
