We have to explore that a bit. To start with, TSCH is a 802.15.4 and we planned to reuse all 6LoWPAN as is, and more importantly, minimal enables to follow 802.15.4 and 6LoWPAN as they evolves. So a product will have to say, minimal + 802.15.4 revision blah, plus 6LoWPAN RFCS xxxx xxxx xxxx, etc... For instance 6TiSCH also defines a backbone mode with a 6BBR, the document is under adoption call at 6lo, and if the process succeeds, that will update 6LoWPAN and be usable by a minimal implementation. Same goes for the RPL artifact compression, which is also under adoption at 6lo.
How do you suggest we word this? Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman > Sent: lundi 30 novembre 2015 19:11 > To: Kris Pister <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal > > Hi Kris, > > On 11/30/15 1:00 PM, Kris Pister wrote: > > That was the original goal. > > > > Hmm... Then there may be more things missing from this document then. > IPv6 address generation rules/guidance, NDP operation, SLAAC functionality, > MTU behavior, etc. all come to mind for that kind of document. Granted, those > may be covered via reference to other RFCs... > > The main point is that if that is the goal, it is not clear when the Abstract > starts > with "This document describes the minimal set of rules to operate an IEEE > 802.15.4 Timeslotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) network." > > Brian > > > ksjp > > > > On 11/30/2015 9:57 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > >> Is this document supposed > >> to be the 802.15.4e equivalent of RFC 2464? _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
