Hi Kerry and Michael
> Kerry Lynn wrote:
> > My main reason is that the draft has no Security Considerations
> section,
> > and I am not sure the
> > scheme can be made secure. I believe the WG should always consider the
>
> I don't think that the lack of a SC section is a reason not
Hi,
I do agree with Pascal and Michael (details inline), the document is supposed
to be modified and improved after WG adoption, this is not WGLC.
Ciao
L.
-Original Message-
From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Thursday, 9 February 202
A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Carles Gomez, a Chair
of the 6lo working group.
-
Working Group Name: IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes
Area Name: Internet Area
Session Requester: Carles Gomez
Nu
