I have seen the functioning of SGs at the IEEE and agree that they can be
useful, but I'm not sure about how it is being "translated" into the IETF>
It occurs to me that we don't need to invent a new process here. The IRTF
houses different types of "research" groups: some are meant
to be long-l
Hi Pekka,
Thanks for the comments.
> Is IPv4 packet encapsulation specifically out of scope? Spell this out. Do
> IEEE
> and the other communities agree with this approach? (Not that I would disagree
> -- just hoping that someone else doesn't go on to invent the v4 adaptation if
> the IETF doesn
The IEEE tends to call them LR-WPANs (low-rate wireless PANs), but I thought
"lowpan" would roll off the tongue a bit easier.
-gabriel
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:37:08 +0200, John Loughney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Low power PAN - personalarea network. But then I wade through these acronyms
>
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:09:57 +0200 (EET), Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it was clear that this WG would only deal with IPv6.
>
> It was not clear *why* this WG is being chartered to only deal with
> IPv6.
>
> What I fear is that unless the IETF does v4, someone else (ITU?)
> will
[As an individual]
I think the lack of DNS SRV for HTTP could also be because of the guidance in
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-dns-applications-02#section-4 that
argues that DNS might not be the best approach for *all* HTTP applications.
Perhaps also for WS applications...
It could
Today, firewalls are not effective against HTTP. Websockets do not represent a
new communication pattern leveraging HTTP. There is a VERY old tradition of
doing this, some with wide distribution (see RFC6202 for some discussion of
things websockets will hopefully replace).
So the problem is no
