Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > While wearing my Gen-ART reviewer's hat this morning, I found myself > reading > the details of a particular use case for RPL*.
You read the AMI document, I'm guessing, which has been a long time in the
making, and was based upon a template, specifically so that industry people
would be more specific than "use RPL"
(Well, no. AMI is in AUTH48, so it must have been another document)
> So, it seems to me that the ACP draft currently has a gap. It isn't
> enough
> for interoperability to just say "use RPL". A few choices and
> parameters need
> to be specified. That looks like a hole in the ACP spec at the moment.
Yes, I mentioned that in my review of ACP last week, and I promised text to
add to it for this.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/current/msg02322.html
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
