To which I agree to the point that foo is not TSCH but 802.15.4, and that minimal and 6TiSCH in general inherit that. This is why we are working at 6lo to improve it in the more general space where it is actually defined...
Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael > Richardson > Sent: mardi 1 décembre 2015 19:29 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal > > > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Do we? Are we using ND for 6CO exchange? > > > Not yet, and minimal does not specify that since it does not change it > > from the behavior of a 6LoWPAN node. The architecture sh/could. > > >> Do we support ND-only nodes that don't speak RPL, 6top or minimal? > > > The architecture does mention that as a goal, but we are missing the > > work at ROLL and 6lo. > > This is exactly where minimal reuses whatever is in the environment for > > that, the environment being the current state of 6LoWPAN on normal > > 802.15.4. > > Do you mean that we should be explicit in saying the a minimal node > > must support at least 6LoWPAN RFCs xxxx? > > I'm saying that an IP-over-FOO(802.15.4e) should probably say these things. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= > IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
