Hi Carsten, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann > Sent: lundi 9 novembre 2009 14:56 > To: Geoff Mulligan > Cc: 6lowpan; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Comments/suggestions on nd-07 > > On Nov 9, 2009, at 22:45, Geoff Mulligan wrote: > > > There is obviously no consensus here that 4861 does or does > not work > > in lowpans. > > But that is a simple matter of checking the facts. > Let's do that and lay that misconception to rest. > I am not sure we have an agreement on what needs to be fixed though from 4861.
> > It does seem clear that there have been concerns expressed > on the list > > that this new ND may not be the "right" direction and may be > > unnecessary for all lowpans, > > Now that is a matter of opinion. > Yes, we had these discussions, and I had the impression they > were resolved. I never had the impression there were resolved and am still not convinced by section 1.2. What is the proposed process to progress on disagreements? What is the status of cross review with 6man? Best, Julien > > > may create complexity where it is not needed, and may break or be > > incompatible with other forms of address assignment for lowpans. > > Fixed in ND-07. > > Gruesse, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
