Hi Carsten,
Yes, ISA100 is stuck at 04. They only use:
01: ECN + 2-bit Pad + Flow Label (3 bytes)
11: Version, Traffic Class, and Flow Label are compressed.
ISA100 is mesh under. Do they effectively carries the ECN bits in the L2
header over the radio to enable each hop to set the bits. The ECN field
is conceptually copied from the L2 to the 6LoWPAN header as the L2
header gets stripped upon reception.
Thanks a lot for raising the flag though. And I agree that the version
in 04 was better.
Jonathan?
Pascal
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
>Sent: dimanche 20 septembre 2009 16:56
>To: Jonathan Hui
>Cc: 6lowpan
>Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Fwd: New Version Notification
fordraft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-05
>
>Jonathan,
>
>one change I don't understand:
>
>OLD (-04):
> TF: Traffic Class, Flow Label:
> 00: Traffic Class + 4-bit Pad + Flow Label (4 bytes)
>NEW (-05):
> TF: Traffic Class, Flow Label:
> 00: 4-bit Pad + Traffic Class + Flow Label (4 bytes)
>
>This is not in the change notes.
>It destroys the byte-alignment of the Traffic Class field.
>It also hurts the (code-saving) similarities -04 had between the TF
>values 00, 01, and 10.
>
>Clearly, this is a regression.
>(Unfortunately, it is almost identical to the old version so I didn't
>notice the change in July.)
>
>As an editorial comment, it would help to just say that the meaning of
>DAC/DAM simply is the same as that for SAC/SAM for M=0.
>
>As another technical note: Are we sure that these changes really don't
>impact ISA100, which appear to be stuck on -04? I haven't managed to
>verify that yet.
>
>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
