Re: [6lo] Adopting draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle

I think that this is a great idea and then lets get 6lowpan shut down - 
finally.

     Geoff Mulligan
     Presidential Innovation Fellow (on furlough)
     Cyber-physical Systems
     SmartAmerica Challenge

On 10/14/2013 12:38 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am in favor of assigning the draft to 6lo.
>
> Best regards
> Ulrich
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM,  <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> wrote:
>> Hi Brian, 6lo,
>>
>> As 6lo participant, but more so as one of the authors of the draft in question, I'm fine for reassigning the draft to 6lo. I can post draft-ietf-6lo-btle-00 as soon as you ask.
>>
>> I would also like to communicate to this WG that we have multiple active authors on the draft, and hence this work item would come with editors attached:-D
>>
>> I am (and have been) actually working on this topic in BT SIG, and I believe it is highly likely that we need to touch the draft a bit more than just add the L2CAP channel identifier that IETF requested from BT SIG. However, the changes should be quite straightforward. After the BT SIG has advanced and needed changes are known, a decision needs to be made whether the document should drop back to WG(LC) or not. For now the IETF side of the actual work needs to stay in holding pattern waiting for BT SIG.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Teemu
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 6lo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Brian Haberman
>> Sent: 14. lokakuuta 2013 19.57
>> To: 6lo@ietf.org
>> Subject: [6lo] Adopting draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle
>>
>> All,
>>       Now that 6lo is an official WG, Ted and I would like to move forward on closing the 6lowpan WG.  However, there is a draft
>> (draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle) that originated in 6lowpan, but has not been published yet.  It currently sits in IESG Evaluation awaiting feedback from the Bluetooth SIG.
>>
>>       I would like to ask the 6lo group if anyone would have an objection to me assigning draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle to the 6lo WG.  There are two potential directions such an adoption could take.  The first is that there are no issues with the draft as it relates to the Bluetooth SIG and no work would be needed on the draft.  The other is that issues arise and the IESG needs to send the draft back to the WG for fixes/revisions.
>>
>>       Can WG participants please respond negatively or positively to the reassignment of draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle to the 6lo WG?  I will take feedback until Oct. 28th, 2013.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6lo mailing list
>> 6lo@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo