Hello Michael: This raises 2 questions: The problem with a normative ref to ROLL's useofrpi is that it will delay the publication till useofrpi is ready to RFC. Do we need that? We could benefit from a non-normative reference to useofrpi, but that would not replace a normative reference to RFC6282, would it?
Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: samedi 6 août 2016 21:20 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal > > > Should section 11.2 reference ROLL's useofrpi document rather than > RFC6282 now? > > 11.2. RPL Configuration > > In addition to the Objective Function (OF), nodes in a multihop > network using RPL MUST indicate the preferred mode of operation using > the MOP field in the DIO. Nodes not being able to operate in the > specified mode of operation MUST only join as leaf nodes. RPL > information and hop-by-hop extension headers MUST follow [RFC6553] > and [RFC6554] specification. In the case that the packets formed at > the LLN need to cross through intermediate routers, these MUST > follow the IP in IP encapsulation requirement specified by the [RFC6282] > and > > [RFC2460]. Routing extension headers such as RPI [RFC6550] and SRH > [RFC6554], and outer IP headers in case of encapsulation MUST be > compressed according to [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] and > [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch]. > > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= > IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
