On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:54 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < [email protected]> wrote:
> Dear all: > > * I was rereading deadline and realized that the draft does not provide > an umcompressed form. What of the packet flies beyond the RPL domain? I > think the information should be useful there too. * > why useful? could you explain the use case? > * Also we always claimed that RFC8138 is an encoding and that we can > always turn a packet to uncompressed and back. Deadline creates an > exception to that rule, which changes RFC 8138 into a sub IP protocol as > opposed to a compression. All in all, I think that an IPv6 header (e.g., a > new option in a hop-by-hop header) should be provided, even if for now it > appears to be for completeness only. What do others think?* > I need to know the use case. Best regards, AB > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
