Hi Ines, +1
> I am just thinking that a new Milestone or Goal would be: 802.15.7 > (Li-Fi) + 6lowPAN. > What do you think about it? It is an interesting technology, I think an I-D submission for this and discussions will make things fit. Discussions and submitting new I-D will continue the active WG :) AB ============== On 6/16/12, Ines Robles <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I am just thinking that a new Milestone or Goal would be: 802.15.7 > (Li-Fi) + 6lowPAN. > > What do you think about it? > > Thanks and Regards, > > Ines Robles. > > > >> Hi Carsten, >> >> I agree that it was good to complete the tasks and solve the specific >> issues, and it may be a good reason for close, but I also think the >> working >> group can decide if they want to bring more tasks in and continue (I >> don't >> see a role in IETF to MUST close WG if completes the specific problems, >> if I am wrong please refer me to a page reference?), and if they want to >> solve other problems related to the group purpose. I think that the >> community drives works/inputs in IETF WGs. >> >> IMO, the IESG is only to decide to requests of open or close, after they >> get an input with reason. I don't think they are prerogative to decide >> the >> input and decide the output as well. IMO IESG are prerogative to decide >> the >> outcome. The inputs are decided by the WG, and the WG may not decide the >> outcome-result of such input. So I think if we want to request for >> continue/close we see the community input for 6Lowpan WG, then if they >> wanted to continue we input to IESG for their approval, if they want to >> close then it will be without an input request. >> >> There is a possibility that I don't know how the IETF works, but I read >> the >> IETF procedures, and see that there is no good reason for close without >> the >> WG consensus or input of this issue. >> >> Regards >> >> > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
