Here are my comments on draft-hui-6lowpan-hc-01.txt.
Figure 1. LOWPAN_IPHC is shown as 1 octet.
But the text describes it is a two-octets field.
Figure 1. It shows "Uncompressed fields follow" after LOWPAN_IPHC.
But, Figure 5 shows differently.
Sec 2.1 pg 5
"Next Hop" for NH bit?
Next Hop and Next Header usages are confusing.
Sec 2.1 pg 5
SAC(?) for Source Address Mode
Sec 2.2 pg 6
Is this ID requiring upper-layer integrity checks?
Are such checks used to detect out of sync, or prevent out of sync?
Can you provide a reference for pseudo-header checksum?
What is the reason for limiting the uni-cast address range
to 15-bit range?
Sec 2.3 pg 8
What is "well-known mapping"? Is it referring well-known multicast
addresses?
Sec 2.4
Is this intended Range order, i.e. Range 0, 2, 1, 3, 4?
Sec 3
Figure 5:
"In-line IP Fields"? Is this "In-line IPv6 header fields"?
Sec 4
It states that another short address range is reserved in this
document.
However, Sec 2.4 shows the reservation/usage of three additional
ranges.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 3:30 AM
To: Carsten Bormann
Cc: 6lowpan
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] HC-01 ready to advance to WG document?
Hi Carsten:
Resending your call. There were a number of votes in favor, so I suggest
that those against should speak now or forever hold their peace.
Pascal
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
>Sent: jeudi 31 juillet 2008 18:56
>To: 6lowpan
>Cc: Carsten Bormann
>Subject: [6lowpan] HC-01 ready to advance to WG document?
>
>Lowpanners,
>
>we were so pressed for time at the WG meeting that the chairs forgot
>to ask "the question":
>
>Do we believe that draft-hui-6lowpan-hc-01.txt is now ready to become
>the WG document for charter item 2, "6LoWPAN Improved Header
>Compression"?
>
>Note that moving the document to WG document status does not mean we
>have to agree with every detail in there.
>We just need to agree that it is a good basis for the remaining work.
>(Moving to WG document status also means that all further changes
>should be the result of work in the WG, so it also removes a little
>flexibility that the authors of an individual draft have.)
>I believe there was tacit agreement in the room in Dublin, and I now
>want to make the agreement explicit on the mailing list.
>
>As the document has been pretty non-contentious, I'm looking forward
>to comments until Monday 1800 UTC.
>If there are no objections by this time, I'll ask Jonathan to resubmit
>the draft as a WG document (possibly with the changes resulting from
>this meeting).
>
>Gruesse, Carsten
>
>_______________________________________________
>6lowpan mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
