Hi Pascal, Thanks for the explanation. So, I understand that the respective SDOs can pick and choose the features from IETF for interoperability of the SDO certified/compliant product but from IETF document perspective, if one wants to implement the HC draft without targeting a particular SDO, then should all the features in HC draft be implemented?
-Samita > -----Original Message----- > From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 11:25 PM > To: Samita Chakrabarti; Geoff Mulligan; 6lowpan > Subject: RE: [6lowpan] WGLC for 6lowpan HC draft > > Hi Samita: > > For all I know, standards such as ISA100.11a or ZigbeeIP will pick and > choose tools from the IETF box and specify which exact part they need and > use, like what they put in the context info, etc... > For HC, they are free to define a subset of the draft that's required for > conformance and leave the rest out. > For instance ISA100.11a does not derive the global addresses from EUI64 and > only cares for stateful compression. > An implementation that wishes to play in many environments had better > support the whole thing though. > > Pascal > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of Samita Chakrabarti > > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 12:40 AM > > To: 'Geoff Mulligan'; '6lowpan' > > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] WGLC for 6lowpan HC draft > > > > I support this fine document. > > > > One question : is it mandatory to implement all HC encoding/decoding > for all > > the cases defined in this draft? Does it plan to handle any error > code when > > one implementation supports the full draft and the other one partially > and > > the lowpan-hc encoded packet is not fully understood by the recipient. > > > > Would like to see this point clarified in the draft. > > > > Thanks, > > -Samita > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > Behalf Of Geoff Mulligan > > > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:03 PM > > > To: 6lowpan > > > Subject: [6lowpan] WGLC for 6lowpan HC draft > > > > > > As there some discussion and changes to the HC draft we will have > one > > > more LC for the HC draft. I think think that we need 4 weeks so I > > > proposed > > that > > > this LC will last one week. > > > > > > This note formally starts the WG Last Call for comments on > > > draft-ietf- 6lowpan-hc-07, "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams in > > > 6LoWPAN > > Networks". > > > > > > The document can be found at: > > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-07.txt > > > > > > The document is intended to be submitted by this Working Group to > the > > > IESG for publication as a Standards Track document. > > > > > > Please review the document carefully (one last time), and send your > > comments > > > to the 6lowpan list. Please also indicate in your response whether > or > > > not you think this document is ready to go to the IESG. > > > > > > This Last Call will end Wednesday May 31 2010 at 2359 UTC. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Geoff > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 6lowpan mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6lowpan mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
