"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email protected]> writes: > I agree... I think that the idea was to make sure that the buffer you > prepare is big enough for the uncompressed form.
That is a useful property. > When Jonathan and I wrote a proposed rework we changed that as you suggest: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-02 [...] > The rework addressed the problems discussed in the attached slides, > and which are still fully present today. > The work needs support to move on. Last I checked interest was really limited. As a general rule, people will show interest if they're being bitten by the problem in practice. If there isn't much interest, that would mean that people aren't running into these problems in practice. It's not clear to me why that would be. > Note also this text in RFC 6282: [...] OK, I can see how that makes the packet reconstructable, as complicated as that system is. I do wonder why it was chosen, though, as it seems both more complicated and less natural than separating compression and fragmentation into two layers. Dale _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
