On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:09:57 +0200 (EET), Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it was clear that this WG would only deal with IPv6.
>
> It was not clear *why* this WG is being chartered to only deal with
> IPv6.
>
> What I fear is that unless the IETF does v4, someone else (ITU?)
> will
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, gabriel montenegro wrote:
Is IPv4 packet encapsulation specifically out of scope? Spell this out. Do IEEE
and the other communities agree with this approach? (Not that I would disagree
-- just hoping that someone else doesn't go on to invent the v4 adaptation if
the IETF doesn'
through these acronyms
> for my day job.
>
> John
>
>
> --- Original message -------
> Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4 (lowpan)
> From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Time: 02/09/2005 9:11 p
Hi Pekka,
Thanks for the comments.
> Is IPv4 packet encapsulation specifically out of scope? Spell this out. Do
> IEEE
> and the other communities agree with this approach? (Not that I would disagree
> -- just hoping that someone else doesn't go on to invent the v4 adaptation if
> the IETF doesn
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Low power PAN - personalarea network. But then I wade through these acronyms for my day job.
John
--- Original message ---
Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4 (lowpan)
From: "Spencer Dawkins&quo
This may be a mindstoppingly stupid comment, but "LowPAN" isn't
exactly a commonly-used term in my end of the swamp, and it wasn't
defined on the WG Review announcement ("go read the drafts", I
guess?). If you charter the WG, it would be lovely to define it on the
WG home page...
Spencer
__
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, The IESG wrote:
The required work includes items in the following (incomplete) list:
* IP adaptation/Packet Formats and interoperability
* Addressing schemes and address management
* Network management
* Routing in dynamically adaptive topologies
* Security,
