Re: [6lo] Draft wording for liaison statement

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 21/07/2015 18:54, Kerry Lynn a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 21/07/2015 12:34, Ralph Droms a écrit :
>
> We held a hum regarding the content of a liaison statement to send
> to ITU-T SG15 in response to the recent liaison statement from SG15.
> The WG has been asked to respond by Friday.  Included below is a
> rough transcription of the words I used in the hum yesterday.
> Scott, Samita, Gabriel, James and I will write up the final liaison
> statement for transmission to SG-15 on Friday.  If you have any
> comments on the *content* (not the specific language, which we will
> likely rewrite) of the text, please comment to the list by Thursday.
>
> -----
>
> The IETF will not change the definitions of the code points specified
> in RFC 4944 and RFC 6282, as published in IANA registry "IPv6 Low
> Power Personal Area Network Parameters"
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml>,
>
>
in such a way as to affect the ITU-T G.9903 and G.9905
> specifications.
>
>
> I agree, it is neutral enough.
>
> But I dont understand why is IANA reserving anything below the IP
> layer?
>
> Provided there is an explanation for it that I missed (sorry), I dont
> understand why IANA is not reserving something for the IPv6 Base
> Header altogether - a simple plain IPv6 Base Header uncompressed.?
>
> <kel> Isn't that what the 01 000001 Dispatch Value bit pattern is
> for?  Or are you talking about another name space?
>
> Kerry </kel>

Is it the "IPv6 - uncompressed IPv6 Addresses"?  If yes, its textual
description looks confusing?  It should, in my reading, rather say "IPv6
Header defined in RFC2460".

Additionally, there is another one appearing later called:
"IPv6 Header RFC6282".  IMHO that should be "IPv6 Header RFC2460".

And I dont understand why we have two values.

Looks as if we could have a packet DispatchType=LOWPAN, followed by a
LOWPAN_NHC=IPv6Header and then the IPv6Header.

With the risk of disturbing with statements, but avoiding to make too
many question marks:

This seems against the goal of _reducing_ headers.

Alex

> The IETF 6lo working group offers to collaborate with ITU-T SG15 in
> establishing a new registry for the code points following the ESC
> dispatch code.  This new registry will be populated at the time of
> its establishment with the Command ID values as defined in G.9903 and
> G.9905.
>
>
> I can agree to it.  But I still need to understand why IANA needs to
> control this.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>
>