Re: [6lo] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4944 (4359)

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Jonathan Hui <jonhui@nestlabs.com> wrote:

<snip>

Jonathan,

Thanks for the historical background.  I think it will inform the
discussion on how to fix
the section going forward.

But putting aside the discussion on the original intent of the value "127"
> and taking a step back, the high-level intent was to support
> arbitrary-length bit patterns for identifying 6LoWPAN headers.  It may be
> that removing any reference to a maximum "dispatch value" offered within
> the first 8 bits is the best path forward, as Kerry has suggested.
>
> No argument here.  I think it's the best that can be done to improve the
section with a
one-sentence change.

Kerry

> --
> Jonathan Hui
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Hui wrote:
>> > I believe the Erratum under discussion is correct and should be marked
>> > as Verified.
>> >
>> > The original intent of "Dispatch value" was:
>> > 1) To refer to the Dispatch field in the Dispatch Header - note the
>> > capitalization in "Allows support for Dispatch values larger than 127."
>> > 2) To identify a namespace that *excludes* the Mesh Addressing and
>> > Fragmentation headers.
>> >
>> > The original draft text (draft-ietf-6lowpan-format-07) was less
>> > ambiguous about the original intent.  Referring to that draft:
>> >
>> > 1) The draft separated the concept of "Header Type" from "Dispatch
>> > Value".  The draft defined Header Types: Dispatch, Mesh Delivery, and
>> > Fragmentation, and Dispatch Values: NALP, IPv6, LOWPAN_HC1, LOWPAN_BC0,
>> > and ESC.  The draft also includes the following text that indicates the
>> > Mesh Addressing and Fragmentation headers are not included in the
>> > dispatch value namespace:
>> >
>> >    The definition of headers, other than mesh addressing and
>> >    fragmentation, in LoWPAN consists of the dispatch value, the
>> >    definition of the header fields that follow
>> >
>> > Note that the text above still lives in RFC 4944.
>> >
>> > 2) The bit pattern figure was titled "Dispatch Type Bit Pattern", not
>> > "Dispatch Value Bit Pattern", with the intent that the table only
>> > included the initial allocations within the Dispatch Header and did
>> > *not* include any mention of Mesh Delivery and Fragmentation headers.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jonathan Hui
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 6lo mailing list
>> > 6lo@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>
>