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 =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

Reply via email to