Same here. Let's keep current approach for the PT. regards, Xavi
2016-01-24 17:56 GMT+01:00 S.V.R.Anand <[email protected]>: > Hi Pascal, > > Thanks a lot for keeping the discussion topics open. I am absolutely fine > with your > suggestion of having the draft as it is for the plugtest. > > Anand > > On Saturday 23 January 2016 05:48 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > > Dear all: > > > > I uploaded the changes made after the discussions > on the 6lo ML and conformed at the interim Friday. > > There are 2 > discussions left open, for a better compression of the RH when the boundary > is not a power of 2 (Simon) and whether we should refrain from consuming > the addresses of the RH as we go (Simon and Anand). For both, there is an > active ticket at 6lo: > > > > #14: More optimal compression of 6LoRH > > > #11: RH3 6LoRH not recoverable > > > > For the plugtest, though, I suggest > we live with what we have, draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-04.txt and > draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch-01.txt. > > > > Note: With this spec an > example of Downward Packet In Non-Storing Mode will be: > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+- ... +-+-+- ... -+-+-- ... -+-+- ... -+-+-+-+-+ ... +-... > > > |11110001 |RH3-6LoRH | RPI-6LoRH | IP-in-IP | NH=1 |11110CPP| UDP | UDP > > > |Page 1 |Type1 S=2 | | 6LoRH | IPHC | UDP | hdr |load > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+- ... +-+-+- ... -+-+-- ... -+-+- ... -+-+-+-+-+ ... +-... > > > <-8bytes-> <- RFC 6282 -> > > > No RPL artifact > > > > > Figure 20: Example Compressed Packet with RH3. > > > > Are > we OK? > > > > Pascal > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: > [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > > Sent: samedi 23 janvier 2016 13:07 > > > To: Robert Cragie <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Dr. Carsten Bormann > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Laurent Toutain > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>; Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>; Laurent Toutain <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > > Subject: New Version > Notification for draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-04.txt > > > > > > A new > version of I-D, draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-04.txt > > has been > successfully submitted by Pascal Thubert and posted to the IETF repository. > > > > > Name: draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch > > > Revision: 04 > > Title: 6LoWPAN Routing > Header > > Document date: 2016-01-23 > > Group: 6lo > > > Pages: 31 > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-04.txt > > > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch/ > > > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-04 > > > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-04 > > > > > Abstract: > > This specification introduces a new 6LoWPAN dispatch > type for use in > > 6LoWPAN Route-Over topologies, that initially covers > the needs of RPL > > (RFC6550) data packets compression. Using this > dispatch type, this > > specification defines a method to compress RPL > Option (RFC6553) > > information and Routing Header type 3 (RFC6554), an > efficient IP-in- > > IP technique and is extensible for more > applications. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the > time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > -- > This message > has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > > 6tisch mailing list > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > >
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
