Having read the doc carefully, I have a question: The doc is somewhat scizophrenic whether it accepts that a link layer can guarantee unique short addresses. Assumption #6 in section 1.3 seems to say "OK" Section 3.2 says that if I do not use DHCPv6 (M flag = 1) I MUST use DAD. I would like this softened to "MUST use DAD if the LOWPAN cannot guarantee unique short addresses"
Thanks, Anders -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann Sent: 17. februar 2011 16:58 To: 6lowpan Subject: [6lowpan] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-15 In September/October, we had the first WGLC on 6LoWPAN-ND, which resulted in a number of detailed comments and two resulting fine-tuning iterations of the draft. draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-15.txt has been out for two months now. I understand it has taken part in several interops with multiple implementations in this period; no issues came up. We now start the Working Group Last Call on: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-15 The document is planned to be submitted by this Working Group to the IESG for publication as a Standards-Track Document. This is a two-week Working-Group Last-Call, ending on Thursday, 2011-03-03 at 2359 UTC. Please review the changes to the document carefully once more, and send your comments to the 6lowpan list. Please also do indicate to the list if you are all-OK with the document. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
