I'm in favor of adoption.
There's a lot of good stuff in this document. I think that it would be
stronger if the scenarios were backed up by reference to actual
deployments and/or data.
Regarding the use of FFDs and RFDs: are we really wed to this as a core
concept? There may be some market segments that deploy this way, but
there will certainly be many others in which all devices are battery
powered and potential routers, and there is no concept of a reduced
function device. It's important to design our protocols to be able to
deal with different capabilities in different nodes, but the FFD/RFD
distinction doesn't seem like the right one. The document refers to
battery powered FFDs - is that even defined at this point?
ksjp
Geoff Mulligan wrote:
The document draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03 has been stable for some
time now and this is a chartered item.
Are you "in favor of" or "opposed to" adopting
draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ekim-6lowpan-scenarios-03.txt)
as a 6lowpan Working Group Document?
Thanks,
geoff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
