Ok, I've made this change per Carsten's original suggestion. I also moved the description of the datagram_tag field after that of datagram_size, to reflect their new order in the header.
-gabriel ----- Original Message ---- From: Carsten Bormann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: David Culler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Carsten Bormann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [email protected] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:37:44 AM Subject: Re: [6lowpan] post-IETF-last-call fix: Extending the Datagram-Tag 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
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
