On Nov 12, 2009, at 16:55 , Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Ulrich Herberg a écrit :
Alex,
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Er?
I can see here two disagreements:
(1) AUTOCONF document draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-00.txt
is not
such a big consensus you make it sound like. To me there seem to
be disagreements on at least one issue: link-local addresses.
Which
brings point 2 below.
I have to disagree. While you personally may not like this document,
the AUTOCONF WG chairs have sensed a consensus of the WG on that
document. Also, some issues about the draft that have been raised
(notably the text about LLs), have been solved during the AUTOCONF
meeting by proposing modifications of the text. The minutes of
AUTOCONF will certainly be released soon. That said, the discussion
about consensus of an AUTOCONF draft is probably of no concern for
6lowpan, so this will be my only response to that topic on this
mailing list.
Ulrich, ok.
What do you think about the 2nd point? (the fact that draft-ietf-
autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-00.txt talks differently about LLs than
draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-07.txt does)
Keep in mind that -07 uses its own definitions and model, which have
little chance of living on their own. So don't compare terminology
from -07 with the autoconf model. In practice, the autoconf model does
not change how our solution works. The design team is now starting to
look at that, so please be patient for -08.
A couple clarifications:
1. We will initially only copy the autoconf model for our purposes. If
it goes forward to an RFC rather quickly, we may theb make a nomative
reference at some point. I at least strongly support that the autoconf
model work is moved forward as quickly as possible.
2. The autoconf model very rightly points out that link-local scope
(and thus addresses) are of limited use. But it does not forbid them.
We have exactly the same setup in 6lowpan-nd as well.
Let's not speculate too much on the autoconf model until we get -08 of
our draft out - and then you will see how the pieces fall together.
Based on my initial analysis it is a nice fit, but the devil is in the
details still. In practice we came to the same conclusions in this WG,
but used slightly different terminology (or it turns out we defined
things like subnets and links when we didn't need to).
Zach
Alex
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
--
http://www.sensinode.com
http://zachshelby.org - My blog “On the Internet of Things”
Mobile: +358 40 7796297
Zach Shelby
Head of Research
Sensinode Ltd.
Kidekuja 2
88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND
This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain
legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system
without producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
