On Nov 9, 2009, at 21:23, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
It was very clear in the previous
version what standard ND meant.
Does RFC 2460 refer to RFC 791 as "Standard IP"?
Does IMAP refer to POP3 as "Standard mail access protocol"?
Does SIP refer to H.323 as "Standard IP telephony signaling"?
When we define an alternative to something, we don't necessarily call
the existing way "standard".
I think the desire to call 4861 "standard ND" is an expression of a
mindset that somehow glorifies that standard.
That's why I asked to get rid of that term in ND-07.
There is, of course, no desire to get rid of 4861 for the domains
where it works (links where you can cheaply reach all other nodes in
one message, i.e., broadcast and point-to-point links).
But there is absolutely no gain in desperately trying to use its
mechanisms where they do not work.
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
