In general, I'm in support of Pascal's proposal. Cleaning up the
format to use a stacked-header format was just one of the items and
there were many other things we wanted to fix before pushing out RFC
4944. But we were far too late to the game in doing a complete
overhaul of the doc. I think *now* is the time to make improvements to
RFC 4944.
--
Jonathan Hui
On Oct 9, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Hi Carsten:
Some implementations and dependant standards would require a timeline
for this. Leaving it up in the air does not help our users do their
product planning?
Considering the attention and the work on the new LOWPAN_IPHC, I
expect
that we'll be ready for WGLC after 2/3 more respins. That could be
achieved by Minneapolis time if we can rally all interested parties to
comment on the existing published spec. So could you chairs please:
propose a time line to the WG along those lines <<<<<<<<<<<<
raise WG attention on this work? <<<<<<<<<<<<
Also by or at Minneapolis, my sensation is that we should not only
discuss the terms of deprecating RFC 4944 HC but also consider the
spec
as a whole:
- Mesh Header is a layer violation. I talked to implementers and their
message is that they do not use it because it's never exactely what
that
specific radio needs; so they end up with their own mesh header anyway
and will not duplicate things for the sake of comliance. Instead we
might need a Routing header, pretty useful for source routing in route
over.
- Fragments are not recovered individually. We have enough
experience to
know where that leads should a 6LoWPAN network experience either high
load or high BER. We have a draft on the works to deprecate that with
recoverable fragments.
- The Current HC WG doc covers all the compression cases in RFC 4944,
bigger and badder.
So what's left?
My proposal is to start a 4944bis that would focus on the addressing
architecture, would be the placeholder to control the dispatch type
but
would defer to the drafts/RFCs that actually detail the operation of
each dispatch type.
What do you think?
Pascal
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
Sent: jeudi 9 octobre 2008 16:43
To: Julien Abeille (jabeille)
Cc: Carsten Bormann; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] rfc4944, hc and dispatchs
On Oct 09 2008, at 16:09, Julien Abeille (jabeille) wrote:
- does it officialy deprecate the old header compression scheme?
My impression of the mailing list consensus is that this is what the
WG wants to achieve.
At the time this was discussed, I cautioned that it is premature to
decide on replacing something existing with known flaws with
something
not yet quite cooked (and, hence, with unknown flaws).
So I expect we'll ultimately decide this question at the time HC and
the related specs come up for WGLC.
Clearly, the stated intention of many WG members is to make this
happen, as it would be wasteful to support two HC schemes in tiny
implementations.
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
