In message <96082b87-d6f6-4dcf-aea6-789c99d5a...@cisco.com> Fred Baker writes: > Not sure that's the same thing. WiFi is an industry organization, not > an SDO. Yes, we could send them a letter.
IEEE would be the relevant standards organization, if we had any relevant input into what is done at layer-2. IEEE usually sticks to layer-2 and IETF to layer-3 and up (layer-2.5 if that is what you want to call MPLS). We would contact WiFi if we had as idea for logo artwork for an IETF homenet/manet/roll/rtgwg blessed profile. This is not typically what IETF does. IMHO - neither is a good candidate for a liason relationship. btw - this message is cross posted to three lists: homenet, manet, rtgwg. I suggest we drop the cc to homenet only and anyone on rtgwg and manet can join homenet and continue the discussion. In Fred's defense, when he started this thread he asked that responses be sent to him only and not to the lists. [I'm not subscribed to manet, so this email may not get there.] Curtis > On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > -1 > > > > The charter already allows for interface to external groups: > > > > --- > > The working group will also liason with external > > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. > > --- > > > > I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO). > > > > Joe > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> > >> On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > >> > >>> To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get a > >>> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or all > >>> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. > >> > >> That would be very interesting. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
