samita Chakrabarti <samitac.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right, there is no document on 6lo address formation that standardizes > the > following suggestion made in the privacy document. > It is though covered in the charter as part of the extension of 6lowpan > stack.
> I don't quite relate the connection with 6lo-paging-dispatch... If we were to define a way to map short-L2 addresses, using the PANID and L2-key, into random-looking 64-bit IIDs, then we'd want to be able to indicate in 6lo compression mechanisms that we want to compress addresses out. I realize upon further thought that 6lo-paging-dispatch is not the right place to define what is really a small extension to RFC6282. But I didn't think that roll-routing-dispatch was either. I'm not sure what to do here: it seems that 6lo-privacy-considerations ought to make a stronger statement about what to do, and to the point of having a normative reference to something concrete that ought to be done. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list email@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo