Colin,
Good point. Is there anyone that wants to put together a short
presentation on the issue with the current spec in 4944 and the proposed
alternative(s).
geoff
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 08:55 +0000, Colin O'Flynn wrote:
> Hi Geoff,
>
> There was also the issue of using PAN-ID's with 16-bit compressed addresses.
> I think we almost reached a consensus on the mailing list there too, but I
> don't think there was a final statement of what to do.
>
> -Colin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Geoff Mulligan
> Sent: March 12, 2010 7:54 AM
> To: 6lowpan
> Subject: [6lowpan] agenda items
>
> so far the only person that has replied to be was Erik to talk about the
> nd-simple draft.
>
> Do we think that we have reached consensus on the HC draft. Should we
> move forward with the plan to just explicitly state that compression can
> only be used in first fragment? If we think that we have consensus on
> the issue we do not need to talk about it at the meeting.
>
> Are there other topics for this meeting other than ND?
>
> Draft agendas were due two days ago...
>
> Thanks,
> 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
