Great, thanks Xavi for the quick action! On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Xavier Vilajosana < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I fixed this in our bitbucket repo. 6P "MUST"s SF to specify the timeout. > > this update will be available in the next version of 6p including all the > changes discussed during the IETF meeting. > > regards, > Xavi > > 2016-11-17 2:14 GMT+01:00 Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]>: > >> Per Diego's presentation There is a contradiction on the 6P draft, first >> saying that >> the SF MAY define the timeout on section 4.1.1 and >> then that the SF MUST define the timeout on section >> 5.2 >> >> 6P authors, can you please fix? >> >> -- >> _______________________________________ >> >> Thomas Watteyne, PhD >> Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria >> Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech >> Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN >> Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH >> >> www.thomaswatteyne.com >> _______________________________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tisch mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch >> >> > -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
