Hi Eric, Agreed. This is inline with the reply I sent yesterday to Lorenzo's mail.
I would suggest the following, let's first focus on the applicability statement, with a revision specifically tackling this aspect, then, once we converge on this aspect, we will solve any other pending issue related to your AD review. What that work? L. [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Paris Research Center Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U. From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2026 9:30 AM To: 6lo <[email protected]> Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]>; Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> Subject: [6lo] On the applicability statement of draft-ietf-6lo-nd-gaao and draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing (PASA) Dear authors, On the applicability statement of draft-ietf-6lo-nd-gaao and draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing (PASA), I agree with Lorenzo (in copy) that the usefulness of GAAO about the multicast efficiency is not overwhelming when compared to DHCPv6 Rapid Commit. But isn't the GAAO purpose to enable PASA and the latter brings other benefits to the constrained network and nodes ? I may be wrong of course, but if this is the case, then the applicability statement of GAAO should clearly include this benefit rather than simply comparing multicast traffic for address allocation. Hope this helps to clarify the usefulness of these 2 drafts, -éric
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
