> I would suggest to reword the text related to the architecture ID > and remove > the mesh-under/route over discussion for the moment.
There appears to be some confusion here. The text about the architecture document says: > This document will cover the concepts of "Mesh Under" and "Route > Over", Any architecture document that does not define these terms would be a rather strange architecture document indeed. >>> My proposal would be to have a discussion on this topic first, >>> trying to >>> reach a consensus in the WG on whether or not we need to define a >>> mesh-under >>> solution. Why would we need such a consensus in the WG with respect to the current charter text? Right now the charter does not ask require the WG to "define a mesh- under solution", and I'm pretty sure we have had rough consensus for a while that we aren't in a position right now to define the mesh routing protocol part of that solution. So the charter proposals on the table always have left that part out. I'm a bit tired of reopening this specific discussion; it is quite clear now that there always will be L2 meshing and L3-only routing camps. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
