Zach Shelby a écrit :
Hi,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
For this RR term...
This is what happens when people try to integrate things. For example
say my 6lowpan node also runs MIP6 and does RR, is this RR or RR?
Unlikely that a 6lowpan node would do MIPv6, however an ER very well
might so I see your point.
I heard it doing TCP... which is a heavier implementation.
Alex
Registration Message (RM) could very well be a solution as we discussed
below. Other opinions ideas on this?
- Zach
This is conversational stuff. Specificational stuff could do anything
else.
Alex
Zach Shelby a écrit :
Hi,
OK, I suggest that the authors and WG brain-storms this in SFO and
then we'll come up with a solution for -03.
Thanks for the ideas, at least for me Registration Message (RM) and
Registration Conformation (RC) could work.
- Zach
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Zach Shelby a écrit :
Hi,
Easy to fix, do you have suggestions for a better abbreviation?
Router Registration (RReg) and Router Confirmation (RCon) for example?
RReg could fly maybe. Hmm... RegReq of MIP4 approaches it too.
Registration Message? Capitalized, and abbreviated as RM.
(Router Confirmation doesn't sound great either, because it's more
of a Confirmation of the Request, not of the Router).
Alex
- Zach
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Following up on my own comment...
"RR" could stand for too many things, among others the Requesting
Router of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation, which I find pertinent in this
space.
Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
[...]
"RR" - potential clash with many terms such as Return Routability
tests (rfc3775), "Resource Records" of DNS, Router Renumbering
"RR" headers rfc2894...
Alex
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
