That would be the easy one for sure but we'd lose the fact that the node attaches to a RPL network, even if it does not know. Cheers, Pascal
> -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: lundi 26 février 2018 18:49 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> > Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6lo] [Roll] A bit for ROLL > > On Feb 26, 2018, at 18:22, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Yes Carsten, > > > > I agree there's a confusion that we need to clean up on the ROLL side. My > definition of leaf echoes yours from RFC 6550. A leaf still understands RPL. > > But over time people started using the term as a plain host attached to a > RPL router but that does not know about RPL at all. > > They should read RFC 6550 then :-) > (Maybe calling them “leaves” in RFC6550 wasn’t so bright, but that’s water > under the bridge.) > > > This is why in my draft I called them "unaware leaves" but in fact they are > plain hosts. I’d be happy with a better term. > > I think “host” is the best term we have for non-router nodes in the IETF. > > Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
