Hi Michael,
Many thanks for your feedback!
Please find below my inline responses:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 17:35, Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> {I haven't read your draft, but I'll get to it}
>
>
Thanks!
> Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote:
> > - “Straightforward Route-Over” incurs the
Hello Michael
Case 2 RPL is hopefully RFC 8138. Else it’s the non storing tunnel as in RFC
9008, the SCHC always encapsulating to the root and back.
Regards,
Pascal
> Le 13 juil. 2023 à 17:36, Michael Richardson a écrit :
>
>
> {I haven't read your draft, but I'll get to it}
>
> Carles
{I haven't read your draft, but I'll get to it}
Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote:
> - “Straightforward Route-Over” incurs the lowest header overhead, as it
> only requires the SCHC Dispatch (1 byte). However, it is the most
> demanding approach in terms of memory usage, since all
Dear 6lo WG,
As you may have noticed, there are currently 3 approaches to enable
route-over multihop in draft-ietf-6lo-schc-15dot4. A preliminary analysis
of pros and cons of each one is provided in Appendix B of the draft, in -02
[1].
Summarizing:
- “Straightforward Route-Over” incurs the
