Dear Pascal, all, Thanks for the draft, and thanks (also to the reviewers) for the comments and subsequent discussion.
We encourage the WG to read the document and provide comments on the mailing list. (Note: as stated below by Pascal, comments provided in the next few days will have the chance to be addressed in a new update of the document to be submitted soon.) Thanks, Shwetha and Carles > Dear chairs > > Thereâs effectively a clear and present need for this feature in a > normative body with a quick deadline. > > The cool thing is that we are on known grounds, just need to extend rfc > 8505 while retaining the general behavior. > > Whatâs cool for the 6LN is that it will not do much special stuff vs a > unicast address; refrain from sourcing packet from it, and set a multicast > bit in the registration will do the trick. > > For the 6LR itâs a bit more work but still we can largely inherit from > rfc 9010. > > Iâll produce the rev with Geneâs points addressed in the next 2 weeks. > Due to the urgency of the situation, other comments to be addressed in > that rev would be welcome this week⦠> > Regards, > > Pascal _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
