Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > After the interim call on Friday , we reviewed the discussions on > minimal and found that we are ready to ship the draft to the IESG.
> The only questions left are:
> 1) should we provide a default value for K1 in the security section?
> 2) which IEEE document should the spec reference?
> For 1) it was suggested that it would help interop if we did. So the
> proposal on the table is to add a well-known key as a default that can
> be modified at commissioning time.
> For 2) the spec makes explicit references deep into 802.15.4e so the
> proposal on the table is to maintain the reference to 802.15.4e as it
> stands now.
I concur with both these ideas.
It's a step-1, *Proposed* Standard RFC, after all!!!
("better is the enemy of good enough")
When the situation with 802.15.4-YYYY is clearer, we can change things,
and cycle minimal, and perhaps we will even advance it to Internet Standard
at that point.
I'm still unclear if we can reference 802.15.4-[2015-or-newer] somehow.
I'm still unclear what it means to reference "802.15.4".
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
