Richard,
thank you for seconding Pascal's draft.
We have had multiple discussions of the fragment recovery drafts in
IETF meetings.
Each time, we found some aspect some of us didn't like, and then
Pascal submitted an updated version solving that problem.
The only thing that got considerable push-back this time was that the
draft shouldn't try to deprecate 4944's fragment headers.
I think this is a statement that could easily be taken out in a
working group draft submission.
(Of course, any other technical wrinkles can be ironed out during the
period the document is a WG draft.)
So I would like to take the opportunity to ask here on the mailing
list whether we should adopt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-simple-fragment-recovery-06
(with the abovementioned change) as a working group document.
-->
If you want to advance this draft, please indicate your support on
the mailing list.
If you think this is a bad idea, please say so, too.
(I would like to receive responses by this Friday, Aug 21, as I'm
going on vacation after that.)
Note that we also have to hear from our AD on this item, as it is not
formally on our charter.
A year ago, Mark Townsley gave us some form of go ahead when we
discussed whether we should be delaying the charter for adding this as
a work item.
He said that waiting wasn't necessary, and we were free to start work.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01114.html
Still, we would need to add a line item under the deliverables, and
our new AD would have to concur -- which is probably easiest after the
yays and nays.
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
