Hi Richard! > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 6:24 PM > To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6tisch] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment- > enhanced-beacon-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > ** Section 2. network id. Can you please clarify the computation of > >> > the default value using SHA-256. > >> > >> I have changed the text to say: > >> : In a 6tisch network, where RPL {{RFC6550}} is used as the mesh > routing > >> protocol, the > >> network ID can be constructed from a truncated SHA256 hash of the > prefix > >> (/64) of the > >> network. This will be done by the RPL DODAG root and communicated > by > >> the RPL > >> Configuration Option payloads, so it is not calculated more than once. > >> That is just a suggestion for a default algorithm: it may be set in any > >> convenience way that results in a non-identifing value. > > > Understood. However, to clarify, is there guidance on how this > > truncation should be applied (i.e., which bits are supposed to be used? > > )? > > The calculation is > a) a suggestion on how the control plane should initialize itself by default. > b) done once in the 6LBR, so any truncation is acceptable. > > I.e. it doesn't matter how it's done. > > Communicating the NetworkID down the RPL DODAG is ROLL WG work, > which has not proceeded in pace with this work.
Understood. Thanks for the changes in -13/-14. Do you think it will be obvious to the reader/audience that any truncation is acceptable (which was more my point, not clearly articulated)? Thanks. I'll clear my position. Roman _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
