Hi Carsten, the terminology section is very useful. It makes also sense if our document refers to draft-ietf-lwig-guidance concerning the terminology and network management sections but also for the technologies described.
Are you actually planning to describe the self-configuration of hosts in section 5.4., which I assume is an essential issue for constrained nodes. I think the authors of draft-nieminen-core-service-discovery could help here. Cheers, Mehmet > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext > Carsten Bormann > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 3:06 PM > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [coman] New terminology section for LWIG and COMAN > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 12:56, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > university.de> wrote: > > > This is useful, thanks for writing it down. > > Thanks. > > > I am not sure what the term "challenged network" really buys us. I did > > not see the term "challenged network" actually used in RFC4838, but I > > do understand that the DTN community used this term. My preference > > would be to move the three bullets currently in 2.2.1 up to section > > 2.2. and to collapse 2.2.1 into a note that simply explains that the > > term "challenged network" has been used for a certain subset of > > constrained networks as part of the DTN work. > > I was mostly trying to declare the really challenged networks out of scope > and delegate > to RFC 4838. > Apparently I'll need to clarify this. > > Grüße, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > coman mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
