6LoWPANners,
I believe I have another complain about the RFC 4944. Yes, we are not
modifying RFC4944 neither here nor now.
However, I have been referred to it several times while discussing the
current WG items. For example, in private and in public I have been
told that RFC 4944 says "EUI-64 address". Or, I am used to EUI-64 being
not an address but an identifier.
RFC 2464 mentions it as an "EUI-64 identifier", or "Interface
Identifier". It never calls it an "EUI-64 address".
RFC 4944 mentions it as an "EUI-64 address" in some places:
rfc4944:
All 802.15.4 devices have an IEEE EUI-64 address, but 16-bit short
addresses (Section 3 and Section 12) are also possible.
[...]
Length: This is the length of this option (including the type and
length fields) in units of 8 octets. The value of this field is 2 if
using EUI-64 addresses, or 1 if using 16-bit short addresses.
It's very difficult to understand it ok.
I am used for an address to be unique, otherwise it's not very good.
But an identifier is not necessarily unique, it's good, and it has that
g bit to distinguish it being unique or not.
Now that you read up to here, also understand my complain about RFC 4944
reading "short address". Instead, I would like it to say "short MAC
address" throughout. This would have saved me much misunderstandings in
many discussions in 6LoWPAN and RoLL.
Thank you,
Alex
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
