Thank you for this great work, and I'm glad that there was just enough time as the end of 6lo to present it.
While I think that in the short term we will get interoperability only because there are various industrial alliances that will define profiles, in the long term, we need to overcome the problems outlined in this document. There is a space beyond the industrial alliances: to the places the people who write the various #ifdef to turn various things on and off, would like to be able to do a better job. Both because of just quality of implementation, but also because of just trying to debug stuff. And the industrial alliances still need some meat on which base their deliberations! We need that ICMP message. I'm not sure what to do with the survey. It's a lot of really good work, and it deserves recognition. I suggest that maybe it should be published in a journal rather than as an RFC. Maybe the https://www.ietfjournal.org/ would be a good place. As for the document. I want to suggest that the WG adopt it. I haven't read it in detail, but I can do that. I prefer to adopt it in order so that we can spend top-of-the-agenda time to figure out what to do with the document. I suspect that a bunch of it will get removed, and that the document will change name, but I think we can do that. -- 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
