Hi Pascal, Great to see we are converging here. So I think the best next actions would be the following:
1. Write an I-D examining the different topologies for connecting LoWPANs to other networks, and the issues/solutions for dealing with that. I think it would be useful to explore both how it works when a routing protocol is run over the backbone, as well as proxy ND. This should reference and use nd-09 as-is so we see if anything is broken or needs better explaining. 2. We should do a better job of defining the assumptions for the topologies this works for (and doesn't), in particular the optional DAD to the 6LBR. We have a pretty clear picture in our heads, but it could be more concrete the draft. I propose making a ticket for that and fixing it for nd-10. Now, it would be great to go back to reviewing nd-09 for technical correctness and nits, which would be a big help. So far I have one ticket from Pascal plus comments from Robert Cragie, so I guess everyone else is happy? Thanks, Zach On May 12, 2010, at 14:31 , Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > I got the message loud and clear that the group does not want that > latter piece in the base spec: > - which works if the spec is specific in which topologies it supports > and which topologies it does not. That was clear in ND 08 section 2.2 > but is gone from 09. > - which is good to speed up adoption of the registration, which is a > great progress for ND at large . -- Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet" Mobile: +358 40 7796297 _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
