Hi Carsten,
On 6/13/08 8:22 PM, "Carsten Bormann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I would suggest to reword the text related to the architecture ID >> and remove >> the mesh-under/route over discussion for the moment. > > There appears to be some confusion here. > > The text about the architecture document says: > >> This document will cover the concepts of "Mesh Under" and "Route >> Over", > > Any architecture document that does not define these terms would be a > rather strange architecture document indeed. Well hopefully we do not need to define what Routing means at the IETF ;-) and the notion of mesh-under is a form of routing at layer 2 (not really in the scope of the IETF). Since this is a contentious debate to say the least, I was proposing to deal with it as a separate item for the moment so as to quickly move forward with the architecture document where lot of work is still needed. > >>>> My proposal would be to have a discussion on this topic first, >>>> trying to >>>> reach a consensus in the WG on whether or not we need to define a >>>> mesh-under >>>> solution. > > Why would we need such a consensus in the WG with respect to the > current charter text? > Right now the charter does not ask require the WG to "define a mesh- > under solution", and I'm pretty sure we have had rough consensus for a > while that we aren't in a position right now to define the mesh > routing protocol part of that solution. Great. > So the charter proposals on the table always have left that part out. > > I'm a bit tired of reopening this specific discussion; it is quite > clear now that there always will be L2 meshing and L3-only routing > camps. This is why I was suggesting to leave it out for the moment in order to quickly move forward on other key topics and then try to reach a final consensus documented in the separate ID. Thanks. JP. JP. > > Gruesse, Carsten > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
