Carsten, You are the one who started this, and you are the one who delayed our work all that time. So please keep your commands to yourself.
Like I said I prefer the change that Ralph indicates as it follows my reading of the consensus. Regardless I was happy with the initial AUTH48 text as I'm happy with that text. Engineering is often about good enough and never about perfection. Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:36 AM > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Megan Ferguson; 6lowpan; RFC Editor; 6lowpan- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc- > 15.txt> > > > You do not understand. My observation is not about HC1's insufficiency. > > It is about the fact that we agreed that the network we are talking > > about is a "IEEE802.15.4-based network" as opposed to an "6LoWPAN". > > Pascal: In the WG, we agreed about a title for that document. > Not about doing a wholesale replacement of the term "6LoWPAN" in all > documents by "IEEE802.15.4-based network". > I would expect the outcome for a call for consensus to be different for the > latter. > In any case, this is not the kind of change to make at AUTH48. There is no > emergency caused by the usage. > > Please indicate to the RFC editor that you agree with publishing the > document now. > > Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
