Re: [6lowpan] Does the 6lowpan WG want to close?

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ines,

+1

> I am just thinking that  a new  Milestone or Goal  would be:   802.15.7
> (Li-Fi)  +  6lowPAN.
> What do you think about it?

It is an interesting technology, I think an I-D submission for this
and discussions will make things fit. Discussions and submitting new
I-D will continue the active WG :)

AB
==============

On 6/16/12, Ines  Robles <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am just thinking that  a new  Milestone or Goal  would be:   802.15.7
> (Li-Fi)  +  6lowPAN.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> Ines Robles.
>
>
>
>> Hi Carsten,
>>
>> I agree that it was good to complete the tasks and solve the specific
>> issues, and it may be a good reason for close, but I also think the
>> working
>> group can decide if they want to bring more tasks in and continue (I
>> don't
>> see a role in IETF to MUST close WG if completes the specific problems,
>> if I am wrong please refer me to a page reference?), and if they want to
>> solve other problems related to the group purpose. I think that the
>> community drives works/inputs in IETF WGs.
>>
>> IMO, the IESG is only to decide to requests of open or close, after they
>> get an input with reason. I don't think they are prerogative to decide
>> the
>> input and decide the output as well. IMO IESG are prerogative to decide
>> the
>> outcome. The inputs are decided by the WG, and the WG may not decide the
>> outcome-result of such input. So I think if we want to request for
>> continue/close we see the community input for 6Lowpan WG, then if they
>> wanted to continue we input to IESG for their approval, if they want to
>> close then it will be without an input request.
>>
>> There is a possibility that I don't know how the IETF works, but I read
>> the
>> IETF procedures, and see that there is no good reason for close without
>> the
>> WG consensus or input of this issue.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>