I am sure you are convinced, but myself and many others in the WG have a hard time seeing RFC 8505 applicability to vehicular environments. There may be elements from RFC 8505, and many other specs, may be leveraged, but this characterization of RFC 8505 as the ND solution is not convincing to me, or to most people in the group (IMO); specially for a spec designed in 6lo for low-power devices, and with the problem statement documented in RFC 4919 not identifying a single vehicular property. You may have to start revising RFC 4919 to change the scope of 6lo work. Sri On 4/25/19, 12:42 PM, "its on behalf of Carsten Bormann" <its-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> € RFC 8505 isn't just about low power. >> The titles says that, so the authors said that and including the IETF >>WG that published and examined it under such use cases > >Actually, it doesn¹t. > >The title is > >Registration Extensions for IPv6 over >6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery > >because 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery was invented for 6LoWPAN before we >started applying it to the entirety of 6Lo. > >The RFC editor guidelines caused this title to be expanded to: > >Registration Extensions for IPv6 over >Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery > >which is indeed the expansion of ³6LoWPAN², but does not help at all ‹ it >just muddies the waters by polluting the title with terms that are no >longer relevant to the document at hand. > >(I¹m not going to go into the other parts of the current discussion; I >have no idea how something like OCB can be discussed without >acknowledging the hidden terminal problem, a.k.a. non-transitive >connectivity, so it seems to me I won't have much to contribute.) > >Grüße, Carsten > >_______________________________________________ >its mailing list >its@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
