IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lowapp] [6lowpan] hardware trends, new vs. existing protocols [Re: 4861 usage in LLNs]

Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com> Wed, 11 November 2009 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowapp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowapp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1E228C307 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:27:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PzPtwRXblSos for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:27:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EMPIRE.hq.ember.com (mail.ember.com [74.10.175.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 986C628C20E for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:27:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com ([192.168.81.60]) by EMPIRE.hq.ember.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:28:57 -0500
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:24:15 -0500
Message-Id: <87639hs100.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
In-reply-to: <278C5C8B-928A-4B01-BA9B-9ADD1CD41CC7@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Henning Schulzrinne on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:12:33 -0500)
From: Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
References: <87y6mfwbfk.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com> <1257809361.11184.123.camel@dellx1> <BCFFD6A3-8B4F-49CF-A657-DE34485134E1@tzi.org> <4AF8C20C.3070905@eecs.berkeley.edu> <9256B623-E13C-4EB3-9DE9-F850F2E828AC@tzi.org> <6B8DDEBE-5550-4795-81E0-DC137114EF83@archrock.com> <4AF8D5A0.1020600@eecs.berkeley.edu> <05C6A38D732F1144A8C4016BA4416BFE0242D3B1@SPO-EXVS-02.itron.com> <4AF90433.30204@eecs.berkeley.edu> <87639il2fh.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com> <4AF9BB54.7070006@eecs.berkeley.edu> <87eio62cu7.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com> <278C5C8B-928A-4B01-BA9B-9ADD1CD41CC7@cs.columbia.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2009 12:28:57.0523 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A369830:01CA62CA]
Cc: Michael.Stuber@itron.com, 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] [6lowpan] hardware trends, new vs. existing protocols [Re: 4861 usage in LLNs]
X-BeenThere: 6lowapp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Application protocols for constrained nodes and networks <6lowapp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp>, <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowapp>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowapp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp>, <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:27:04 -0000

   From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
   Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:12:33 -0500

   The charter is presumably a draft, not a consensus.

Yes, for 6lowapp.  6lowpan has an agreed-on charter.
My remarks concerned 6lowpan, and I should have
taken 6lowapp off of the reply list.  Mea Culpa.

                           -Richard Kelsey

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email