James Woodyatt wrote: > No standard way of announcing this operational parameter is described in > the mesh header renovation proposal. Yes, and there never has been a standard way of announcing the use (and the purported semantics) of the RFC 4944 mesh header either, so nothing would change in that respect. As defined in RFC 4944, the mesh header is an empty shell, to be filled in by a specific agreement that all interoperating nodes in a mesh need to be aware of before they can start using it. Again, no change at all by the new proposal, except that the syntax now would also be allowed to change with that special agreement. If those who want to use the old syntax would actually tell what they plan to use it for, there might maybe be a basis for some argument. I still haven't seen anything but political maneuvering. Why is it so hard to argue at a technical level? Grüße, Carsten