Alex, On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote: >>[..] >> I have to disagree. While you personally may not like this document, >> the AUTOCONF WG chairs have sensed a consensus of the WG on that >> document. Also, some issues about the draft that have been raised >> (notably the text about LLs), have been solved during the AUTOCONF >> meeting by proposing modifications of the text. The minutes of >> AUTOCONF will certainly be released soon. That said, the discussion >> about consensus of an AUTOCONF draft is probably of no concern for >> 6lowpan, so this will be my only response to that topic on this >> mailing list. > > Ulrich, ok. > > What do you think about the 2nd point? (the fact that > draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-00.txt talks differently about LLs than > draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-07.txt does)
I have not followed the discussions in 6lowpan closely enough, to express an opinion on that. 6lowpan may have other assumptions and another architecture, and the autoconf-addr-model might thus not directly be applicable in 6lowpans. Ulrich _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
