WG: what do you think?
mcr> The goal of this document is to provide a container for a number of
mcr> somewhat unrelated things, and do this in a on-the-wire efficient
mcr> way. Otherwise we'd split it up into multiple TLV.Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > The text you propose helps a little, but it makes me uneasy that a > significant part of the (1!) structure defined in a Standards Track > document is experimental. Also, the fact that the WG does not in > general have a clear prescription and that there's work to be done in > RPL, makes the text sound speculative. > It would be more appropriate (again, for a Standards Track document) to > simply declare the specific use and determination of the different > priorities as out of scope (vs the subject of future research). You > might still want to include a separate non-normative section (or an > appendix) to deal with "future work", but having that discussion while > the fields are being specified does not seem right to me. I understand your point. I think that it's not much different than BGP4's MED attribute. I think that 80% of operators still have no idea how to set it :-) We don't know how to *set* the value, but we *do* know how to interpret different values. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
