I am so confusing of why TCP over 6LoWPAN is on the table of discussion. So far, I can't see any requirement in terms of TCP usage over 6LoWPAN. It seems very hard to be implemented on the 6LoWPAN from the engineering perspective. So, we need to clarify TCP requirement before jumping into the TCP discussion. To me I am a bit negative.
Thanks, Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics. ----- Original Message ----- From: "IGARASHI Yuichi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Shah, Rahul C'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Carsten Bormann'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Schumacher Christian Peter Pii'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:31 PM Subject: RE: [6lowpan] friday's agenda > To the group from a new member > > The follow are only my personal opinion: > I also agree with Rahul's opinion. I think it would be useful to consider > connecting to external network for applications, and that gateway > architecture is important subject. > But, I think that issues inside 6LoWPAN should be solved first. For example, > compression header format of TCP/ICMPv6, scalability of 6LoWPAN, and > correspondence to IPv6 ready logo, etc. Because most important purpose of > 6LoWPAN is to transmit IPv6 packets efficiently over IEEE 802.15.4, I think. > > > I would like to hear about perspective for the future (order of the subject > which should be solved) in WG. > > Thanks, > Yuichi IGARASHI > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shah, Rahul C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:52 AM > To: Carsten Bormann; Schumacher Christian Peter Pii > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [6lowpan] friday's agenda > > Carsten/Geoff, > >>From the perspective of a new member to the group, I was wondering why > the "Gateway architecture between 6LoWPAN and IPv6 networks" is not > being given priority in the current rechartering... I would think this > is important since no 6LoWPAN network is going to be a standalone > network. > > Additionally, I would suggest that the group also consider a gateway > architecture between 6LoWPAN and an IPv4 network, due to the > preponderance of IPv4 in the short term. I am not suggesting that any > flavor of IPv4 be used inside the 6LoWPAN, but it would be useful to > consider connecting to such a network. > > What does the group have to say? > > Thanks, > Rahul Shah. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 12:56 PM > To: Schumacher Christian Peter Pii > Cc: Carsten Bormann; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] friday's agenda > > On Mar 19 2006, at 17:01, Christian Schumacher wrote: >> Carsten and Geoff, what is the status of the official agenda for >> 6lowpan WG meeting on friday? > Well, I think that status is called "very very late" in English... > > An initial draft of the agenda is at > > http://6lowpan.tzi.org/6lowpan_20at_20IETF_2065 > > Please also follow the "recharter" link and send comments on the > draft charter to this list. > There are names of possible contributors in the proposed charter -- > these are not meant to be exclusive, and we would like to hear which > ones of the potential charter items each of you wants to work on. > > Apart from the Friday WG meeting, we plan to have a 6lowpan dinner on > Thursday (after the plenary) -- please RSVP to Christian if you want > to participate. > > Gruesse, Carsten > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
