Re: [6lo] Possible 6LoWPAN dispatch type deprecation and re-use for route over purposes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]