On Oct 22, 2006, at 12:26 PM, gabriel montenegro wrote:
Thanks for coming forward and expressing your opinion on this. I
don't know if
we have consensus (it's the WG chairs' job to judge that). But
perhaps we can move
forward with the latest understanding based on recent exchanges, as
you suggested.
I will prepare a version to reflect this and submit.
I encourage those involved in the discussion to express their
opinion on that version
so we can gauge if we're done with it as a WG or not.
I think that the approach of making the first 16 bits the same on all
three header formats is a good idea. At the very least, it simplifies
protocol processing, reducing code size and complexity.
I am unsure whether the five bits will be sufficient. However, we are
likely to only know this from practice, rather than idle postulation.
I think David raised this point when he asked active developers
whether they have found it sufficient.
Even with these reservations, though, I think it is OK to be
standards track. It is common for standards track RFCs to have
subsequent versions that obsolete earlier ones, based on experience
and use.
Phil
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
