IPv6 over networks of resource-constrained nodes
charter-ietf-6lo-01

Thanks for working with me to clear my Discuss and address my Comments

in full support of what Adrian wrote in his ballot.

I agree with Adrian that the draft shouldn't be main impetus for a charter.  If it is, then I think we can't charter this until the lwig terminology is actually approved and maybe even published.

In addition, I think the following could be tightened up:

6Lo will
coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas that focus on
constrained node networks, such as today ROLL (RTG) and CoRE (APP), and
appropriate groups in the IETF OPS and Security areas including potential future
groups spawned from efforts such as COMAN and SOLACE.

Maybe:

6Lo will
coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas that focus on
constrained node networks, such as today ROLL (RTG) and CoRE (APP).

For #4, is there maintenance needed already or is that future proofing the charter?  Also, what information documents are needed - are there some already written?

a) It's just an example,  b) you don't actually need to list everything, and c) COMAN and SOLACE might not happen.

Also, isn't it s2.3 in draft-ietf-lwig-terminology that defines "Constrained Node Networks" not s2.1 and s2.2?

I'm a No Objection. I understand Adrian's Discuss about using the LWIG draft to define the working group scope, but I'm assuming this will be addressed (whether by just using words like "constrained" in their normal sense, or by finding a more stable reference).

I'm not reading the current text as saying that "TCP over IPv6 over foo" would be in scope, but wonder whether using a term like "IPv6 encapsulation over foo" would be helpful in addressing Adrian's Comment.

Thank you for addressing my concern