samita Chakrabarti <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
