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

[Jonathan Hui <[e-mail]>]

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