On Oct 8, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Colin O'Flynn wrote: > Hello, > > As an additional comment before LC closing: > > I think it would be prudent to set the ARO status to something besides ‘0’ in > the NS, instead defining a new default for the registration message. > > This would ensure you could never get in a state where either (a) someone > copies the ARO without changing the status or (b) a node somehow gets > confused and processes the ARO wrong. You can always tell from the ARO if > this is a registration message or a response message without looking at the > encapsulating layer (ie: NS/NA).
I think this is a good idea, it could be set to e.g. 255 instead? Zach > > Regards, > > -Colin > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan -- 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
