Re: [RSN] The need for RSN

Geoff,

As far as I know, there has not been any consensus yet to what is in
the scope of 6lowpan and what is not. But concering the RSN/R2LN
efforts, it would be favorable to find consensus as soon as possible,
so that it's clear where to dedicate new work to.

Dominik

On 6/8/07, Geoff Mulligan <geoff-ietf@mulligan.org> wrote:
> I would like to reiterate that I think that the work RSN group has
> suggested taking on is very important to my working group - 6lowpan.
>
> Our working group is looking to recharter and the scope of the work will
> be focused on issues related to interoperability for 6lowpan networks.
> This include things like MIC identifiers, alternative mesh headers,
> security, ...
>
> What is not in the scope is routing.  I think the RSN concept is
> important in that the devices we are anticipating have significant
> constraints (power, memory, processing) and as such the current set of
> protocols and development is probably not appropriate for these types of
> devices.
>
>        geoff
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RSN mailing list
> RSN@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
>

_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
RSN@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn