Re: [6lowpan] 6lowpan Digest, Vol 88, Issue 9

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Sat, 16 June 2012 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059BE21F85C4 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CBbzcOPUMLjj for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3729321F85C2 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so5456816obb.31 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Gxm9rtKRVxjSH7i2t3BYn01f+Axz5rQA1TGE3pPpl1Q=; b=O92iXZkkmJarH6wMBygTcjMKcATFHxvgub2N/IlfFGbV6QyzxWVfxaSsekCWzsB7SP WyQpMjak65Bdk1vp8sMV2VUbCZEEUSBUj0JjfTAzofqExo993TCHKmVaBdFRICnKhxnp 2/PLDTSu6+X8n+1ScJnaN6IN/j3FXR8IhBR/foVZ5kNJnX94nYr1siVje6g9LKFm3Rm9 zqF8R6fKJrDWlEhE+Y2M6pX4D0EvEcPErdJC5ICC8+FLprFn9LOaQvewrC5fAzbSyQO0 BKSE/FhKXlsSpGukaGHJAlmwT2ZrJaMfAaOT9QnSy8fUIVdB4NFDWVvMwhbGwqajrD1B qSeA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.174.6 with SMTP id bo6mr10393565obc.65.1339881344490; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.58.134 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1139.1339765940.3336.6lowpan@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.1139.1339765940.3336.6lowpan@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:15:44 -0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUdaeNY=smbGEnfutBT10kF0GPZrrj0Z4UwwKqU+bbMBvw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
To: 6lowpan@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f50318a945cd804c29d6f9d
Cc: cabo@tzi.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] 6lowpan Digest, Vol 88, Issue 9
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:15:46 -0000

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
>
>