On Mar 19 2007, at 18:00, David Culler wrote:
They should be reserved and undefined at this stage
But this is exactly what the proposed text says -- it only defines
the 11000 and 11100 prefixes, and all other bit combinations are not
defined.
I would not want to pre-suppose 11xNN needs to be a Fragmentation
header -- it might be something completely different.
(Maybe I don't understand your concern.)
BTW, this also touches on the IESG comment below.
Gruesse, Carsten
#################################
* Editorial 1
From Gen-ART review by Joel Halpern:
I don't know that I have ever seen a document before that
says "thou
shalt not extend this." (Section 5, last sentence before 5.1, "All
headers used
in LOWPAN adaptation layer SHALL be defined in this format document.")
===> INTERPRET COMMENT
My view of this is that this is indeed the intention. Of course,
evolving this spec itself should be possible. Note that this would
require some version management, which will need to be addressed by
bootstrapping.
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
