Hello Pascal,
I have a few comments/questions regarding you fragment recovery proposal. In your recoverable fragment header: Sequence number: At this point the consensus is that fragment sizes are fixed. This deems the sequence number redundant since you can easily extract the "sequence" number from the datagram offset, and needs not be sent over the wireless media. Fields in re-coverable fragment header: I am wondering what the rationale is behind changing the order of the header fields: RFC[4944] -> datagram size, datagram tag, datagram offset Re-coverable fragment: datagram offset, datagram tag, SEQUENCE (see above, this is redundant), datagram size. Any reasons for re-arranging the order of the fields? Thank you. "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." - Andrew S. Tannenbaum Robert Assimiti Executive Staff Engineer Office: [678]-202-6859 Mobile: [404]-578-0205 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is confidential, proprietary, legally privileged, subject to copyright and is sent for the personal attention of the intended recipient only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to advise us immediately, delete it and destroy any printed copies of it. You are notified that reading, disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. No employee is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of NIVIS LLC with another party by e-mail without express written confirmation by an officer of the company. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the viruses in this e-mail or attachments.
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
