Re: [6lowapp] Revised Charter Proposal

Absolutely agree.  +1

-----Original Message-----
From: 6lowapp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowapp-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Kerry Lynn
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 10:43 AM
To: Cullen Jennings
Cc: 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Revised Charter Proposal

Cullen,

I, for one, am nervous about deferring a naming and discovery approach
and feel that this is important to interoperable implementations.  Not
sure I see the value of creating a framework for defining new profiles
and interface objects, if there's no consistent way to name and discover
them.

Regards, -K-

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
wrote:
>
> I think I made one (or at least one) big mistake in this charter
update. At the end of the BOF, there was clear consensus to make the
initial charter thorough out everything but the minimal approach.
(Basically Ted Hardie's proposal). I thought I had done this but realize
in going back and listening to the BOF recording that this included
leaving the discovery stuff to a later time. I think I need to update
the charter to move the discovery work to not be in the initial scope of
work.
>
_______________________________________________
6lowapp mailing list
6lowapp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp