Hi Luigi, Thanks for your comments, and apologies for the wording used in the initial version of the minutes.
We agree with your suggestion. The minutes have been updated accordingly. Cheers, Shwetha and Carles <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Libre de virus.www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 at 10:31, Luigi IANNONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > > > Thanks for the minutes, that look accurate to me. > > > > I have only one nits: > > > > In the GAAO part I would replace the sentence: > > > > Luigi noted that interoperability documents aren’t > > strictly required to prove “superiority” over other methods, > > especially when they address different architectural “puzzles.” > > > > With: > > > > Luigi noted that interoperability documents aren’t > > strictly required to prove performance compared to other > methods, > > especially when they address different architectural “puzzles.” > > > > Since my point was not about “superiority”, but rather just to showing the > performance is not required. > > > > Thanks > > > > Luigi > > > > > > *[email protected] <[email protected]>* > > Paris Research Center > > Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U. > > > > *From:* Carles Gomez Montenegro <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 25, 2026 4:33 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [6lo] Initial version of the minutes from the 6lo WG session > at IETF 125 > > > > Dear 6lo WG, > > > > Please find below a link to the initial version of the minutes from the > 6lo WG session at IETF 125: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-125-6lo > > > > Should you have any comments or suggestions, please let us know. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Shwetha and Carles >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
