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

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Teemu,

On 10/14/13 2:18 PM, [e-mail] 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.
> 

Thanks for the input.

First, I don't think we would not need to rename the draft.  That tends
to create some confusion for people.  Secondly, I would not see a reason
to change the editors of the draft, unless they made a request for a change.

Regards,
Brian