Hum: We thought there was, including René. I think the problem came up with the proposal by Kris and that's what we have been discussing. This discussion has forked but the title remains; we want to ship minimal and the only road block is security.
We want to say is that minimal does not use L3 security (e.g. the optional one in RPL), and that it needs proper L2 security for both L2 itself (e.g. for the join process) and for L3 PDUs within the LLN. Can you please verify where/if/how the current text is wrong and propose a fix? Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Tero Kivinen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: lundi 25 mai 2015 13:12 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Michael Richardson; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6tisch] Shipping minimal > > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) writes: > > But because we do not seem to reach consensus on new text, I think > > along René's recommendation to fall back on the original text that > > reached consensus, suggesting a key "6tisch-minimal15" (string format > > + Hexa) to serve as K1 for the interop test. > > > > Do we have consensus on this? > > I do not really think we had consensus on that text either, as the reason why > this > discussion started was because there was complains about that text. > -- > [email protected] _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
