#108: IESG comment #17 (by Adrian Farrel) - Clarification about the need of Fig.
4
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Reporter: carle...@… | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: closed
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: routing-requirements | Version:
Severity: - | Resolution: fixed
Keywords: |
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Changes (by carle...@…):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => fixed
Comment:
We believe that, in our opinion, no revision with regard to Fig. 4 should
be made due to the following reasons.
The header formats shown in Section 3.2 are not routing protocol PDU
headers. These formats are the ones defined by 6LoWPAN technology in RFC
4944 and draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-07, i.e. which 6LoWPAN adaptation layer
headers are used for Route Over and Mesh Under.
The 6lowpan routing requirements document is intended as an informational
document which, in addition to the explicit requirements, aims at
presenting useful information for the development of routing solutions.
(We assume that making explicit which headers are used in Mesh Under or
Route Over is useful information.)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/108#comment:1>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
